Senate
14 May 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) look the chair at 3.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 937

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of he Minister for Works who, under the Minister for Trade and Industry, is Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. Does the Minister recall that last week I asked Senator Scott a question about the national development possibilities that would be opened up by the Marshall Holten road from Alice Springs to Wilson Cliffs in Western Australia? Will the Minister in his capacity of Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities have a survey done of this road with a view to having it publicised and declared a tourist road? Will he also investigate the possibility of producing some literature about the surrounding country, as well as a Strip map of the road?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– 1 was very much interested in the honourable senator’s question to my colleague, Senator Scott, last week from the point of view of both national development and tourism. This road impresses me as one of great potential, linking as it does Ayers Rock and its environs with the districts containing exciting mineral riches in the north west of Australia. I will certainly act upon my colleague’s suggestion of having a survey done from the tourist angle, and take into consideration all that the honourable senator has urged.

page 937

QUESTION

JAPANESE CARS

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is it a fact that Australia and Japan have come to an agreement upon the price that will be charged for Japanese motor cars entering Australia? Is it a fact also that the increase in price of Japanese cars will apply to those cars that are to be shipped as from a fixed date? Is it further a fact that certain Japanese cars that are now in Australia or on the sea will be sold at the lower price rather than the fixed price agreed between the two countries? If this is so, what steps has the Government taken to ensure that black- market prices will nol be charged for cars at present in Australia and others on the sea?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Last Thursday in the Senate I made a statement covering mo’.t of the matters that have been raised by the honourable senator in his question, lt is a fact that the price of Japanese cars sold in Australia will be in accordance with the price determined in an agreement between the Japanese Government and the Australian Government. The individual prices I mentioned in my statement last’ week were only, approximate. They were not the exact figures. They will take effect in relation to cars shipped after midnight last Thursday, lt is presumed that cars that are in Australia at the present time or that were on the water at midnight last Thursday will be sold at the prices at which they have already been advertised by distributors in Australia.

page 937

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware that’ last weekend a seminar on Vietnam was held in North Melbourne Town Hall? Is she aware that the commercial television stations on channels 9 and 7 gave coverage to a demonstration outside the hall by the Young Socialists League, the youth organisation of the Communist Party, but also gave coverage to the speech made inside the hall by the Vietnamese Ambassador? Is the Minister aware that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as usual, on its 7 p.m. television news, gave coverage only to the Communist demonstration? Would it negate the Postmaster-General’s oft repeated claim that the Australian Broadcasting Commission must be free, to suggest that, like the commercial stations, it cover both sides and not just the Communist side?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I did not see on the commercial stations the demonstration nor hear the speech to which the honourable senator has referred. I note his statement that the Australian Broadcasting Commission gave only one side of the subject. I shall bring before the Postmaster-General the opinions expressed by the honourable senator because I believe it is most important that this matter should have been represented fairly by the national stations.

page 938

QUESTION

GORDON RIVER HYDROELECTRICITY SCHEME

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. In relation to the Commonwealth Government’s offer of a $47m loan to the Tasmannian Government for the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme, can the Minister inform the Senate whether the conditions under which the loan has been offered stipulate that any specific amount must be expended before the expiration of any named period of time? When will the precise conditions governing the loan be made public?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– It is a fact that the Commonwealth Government has decided to provide bridging finance up to an amount of S47m to the Tasmanian Government for the development of hydro-electric power supplies in Tasmania. This is on the understanding that the State will find the difference between $47 and a total expenditure of $21 2m over the next 5 years. Legislation in relation to the matter is being prepared and it is hoped that it will be introduced into the Parliament this session.

page 938

QUESTION

PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Attorney-General consider a close examination of existing Commonwealth and State laws permitting peaceful demonstrations for social and . economic reform to ascertain whether people who seek to use such avenues as a forum for racial hatreds should be allowed to prostitute such privileges? In particular, will he investigate the actions of the fourteen members of the Australian Nazi Party who demonstrated outside the Barclay Theatre, George Street, Sydney, against the film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ which advocates tolerance in racial relations? Is he also aware that the happening in Sydney on Friday night gave distress to people who had experienced first hand the evils of Nazism in Europe?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I appreciate the spirit in which the honourable senator brings this matter to the attention of the Senate. The privilege of engaging in peaceful association is one with which I am sure no member of this Senate would wish to interfere. Those who engage in protests against engagements such as in Vietnam are those who would specially enjoy a continuance of what we think is a fundamental liberty of peaceful association. The development of Nazi ideas is engaging the very close attention of the Government, but it believes that until the activities of demonstrators are contrary to the law, any notice taken by the Government of them serves only to give them undue prominence. However, the Senate can be assured that the law will be enforced.

page 938

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. I ask: Is the Minister aware of a statement reported to have been made yesterday by the Victorian Council of School Organisations claiming that the Federal Government favoured independent secondary schools in its science grants and that secondary students in Australian State schools were getting far less in federal grants for science than were students in independent- schools? Furthermore, is he aware that the organisation asserted that Victorian school students in particular were getting well below the Australian average in these grants? Does he feel confident that he can refute these statements and will he have figures published which adequately demonstrate that no favouritism exists in any way whatsoever to any individual or State in this most important matter?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I wish that the honourable senator’s question had been directed to me last week when we were discussing the new legislation to grant some $39m for the improvement of science laboratories over the next 3 years as 1 had the relevant papers in front of me. Any suggestion that the. Government has favoured independent schools has to be assessed with regard to a judgment as to the relative needs of the State schools and independent schools. Figures I gave last Thursday, which were freely open to criticism by senators or by anybody else, showed that, I think, nearly 1,000 State schools had benefited from these grants compared with a much lower figure for independent schools, and that about 30% of the total grants had gone to independent schools and the balance to State schools. The honourable senator has expressed a viewpoint arising from a public discussion

In Victoria that the figures show that Victoria is being discriminated against in this respect. I just wish to say with the utmost goodwill to the Victorians that the honourable senator can be assured that the whole of the §39m which is being devoted to. this purpose by the Commonwealth Government is being allocated among the States strictly in proportion to the per capita enrolment in the schools concerned.

page 939

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the. Leader of the ‘ Government in the Senate been informed that the Australian delegation to the United Nations Conference on Human Rights now in session at Teheran has acquitted itself with considerable credit to Australia in presenting the viewpoint of Australians on the most important subject of human rights? Will the Minister make (he necessary arrangements for the public relations section of the News and Information Bureau to have film or videotape, radio and Press coverage of the speeches made by -the Australian delegates at this important conference made available for distribution and exhibition by national and commercial radio and television stations and by newspapers throughout Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As the honourable senator has indicated. Australia sent to the United Nations- Conference on Human Rights a delegation led by Mr Bowen, the Attorney-General, which included, among others. Senator Murphy, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. From the point qf view of that delegation the conference proved to be quite interesting. 1 assume that the Attorney-General, will be making to the Parliament a statement on the delegation’s visit to Teheran.- If so, it will certainly be repeated in the Senate. Later today T will ensure that the matters raised by the honourable senator are brought to the attention of the Attorney-General. If ] am in a position tomorrow to give a reply to the honourable senator, I will certainly do so.

page 939

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I ask the Minister in Charge 0t Tourist Activities:- -In view of the fact thai the article in ‘Scala’, an overseas magazine, quoted by Senator Branson last week when asking -a question, implied- that because of certain dietary deficiencies Tasmania in effect is not a healthy place in which to live - an untrue assessment of the facts about Tasmania - can the Minister state whether he has taken any action to have the facts about the healthy and prosperous conditions always prevalent in Tasmania made known to the editors of the magazine?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– What a bonny question from a senator from Tasmania where health prospers in the sunshine. I wish to assure my Tasmanian colleague that I have equipped myself with all the information that would portray to the minds of Germans-

Senator Devitt:

– The Minister should send to the magazine a photograph of himself.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I have in my hand a’ much more beautiful photograph than one. of myself, reproduced with a skill unequalled even by photographers in West Germany. It is in a pamphlet produced in. Tasmania, in. which it is stated that Tas. mania is a prominent Australian producer of quality products of world standard.- lt is one of the world’s largest producers of fine paper because located in Tasmania is one of the’ world’s largest fine paper mills. Tasmania is also one of the world’s largest producers of electrolytic zinc. I do not think I need ‘ to mention the scenic beauty and tourist amenities of Tasmania. If I pass around the ‘ pamphlet to which I have ‘ referred honourable senators may see evidence of the loveliness of Tasmania’s lakes and people.

page 939

QUESTION

ANZUS PACT

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– f address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who represents the Prime Minister in this chamber. ask: When the Prime Minister visits the United States of America next week, will he lay on the line to the President of the United States our definite problem and emphasise that the people of Australia are concerned because, while under the terms of the ANZUS Pact and subject to the legislative processes of the United States Congress there is some assurance that aid may be given to- us if there is a disturbance involving the Pacific area, there- is no United Stales concern or obligation in respect of a disturbance involving the Indian Ocean area? .

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– When the Prime Minister of Australia goes to the United States, it is axiomatic that he will put to the President of the United States all matters which he considers to be in the best and proper interests of Australia. Beyond that, I have nothing to say in answer to the honourable senator’s question.

page 940

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATION BY SCHOOL CHILDREN

Senator BRANSON:

– ls the Leader of the Government aware that there was an organised demonstration last night outside the American Embassy? Did the demonstrating school children come from Sydney? Was the bus ride organised by the Communists or Communist front organisations? Does he know the names of the organisers - because they have been published - and is one of the purposes of this visit to present a petition to the Parliament? Are minors allowed to sign petitions to this Parliament? If they are, what weight do these particular petitions carry?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– There are certain elements of the honourable senators question which I would need to direct to the Attorney-General. As to the generality of his question, I would say that if ever there was a fruitless and pointless demonstration it was the one that was put on by a group of youngsters who came from Sydney to demonstrate. I am quite certain that it was completely and absolutely pointless. It was something that served no good purpose. Indeed, from what I have read about it - and the only information I have is what I have read about it - I think the youngsters themselves who were involved in it were exploited by people who should have better sense. It is a deplorable fact that people who have a political axe to grind - in some categories or groups at any rate - attempt to persuade youngsters who have no understanding of the meaning of what they are doing to demonstrate. That is not to say that I have views contrary to those expressed by Senator Wright earlier about peaceful demonstrations. But when people enourage youngsters to demonstrate who cannot possibly have an appreciation of what it is all about, it is a poor commentary on those who claim to cherish our democratic principles.

page 940

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, lt relates to the frequently occuring interruptions to railway traffic to Alice Springs, sometimes due to the failure of diesel electric locomotives to traverse flooded sections, particularly bridges. As the Minister knows, these interruptions leave the town in complete isolation. Will the Minister urgently consult with the Commonwealth Railways Com-‘ missioner with a view to examining whether, in special circumstances, use may be made of steam locomotives or diesel mechanical units to overcome the interruptions caused when diesel electric traction units cannot be used over flooded sections?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I am’ aware of the flood conditions that exist along the railway line from Port Augusta north towards Alice Springs. We all know that floods have occurred there recently. These floods have delayed the running of rail traffic for at least a week. The first train will not leave for the north until about the 15th or 16th of this month. I will , raise with the Minister the honourable senator’s suggestion with relation to a changeover to a different type of engine and obtain a detailed reply from him, which I will transmit to the honourable senator in writing.

page 940

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories inform the Senate whether it is the intention of the Government to make available to the University of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea the sum of $4.5m for the financial year 1968-69 ‘ as requested by the University’s Interim Council? Has the Government reduced this grant? If so, by what amount has it been reduced?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is very difficult for me to remember the precise figure that has been allocated to the University for this specific year. ‘ I have stated it on two occasions in recent weeks in the Senate. I am aware that a small minority viewpoint is being expressed that the sum is’ inadequate. However, the Senate can be assured that, when it is considered in relation to the other’ requirements and the other educational institutions in the Territory, the sum provided. by the Government ensures the maintenance of the University and its growth during this year. The numbers of undergraduates enrolling for the three or four faculties provided by the University are showing a very significant increase.

Senator Keeffe:

– Why not tell me the amount?

Senator WRIGHT:

– -I do not have the precise figure.

page 941

QUESTION

WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Supply say whether he has any up to date report to make to the Senate on the future activities of his Department at Woomera and Salisbury in South Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– At the present moment Mr Stonehouse, the Minister of Stale (Technology) in the United Kingdom Government, is in Australia. In fact he is at Salisbury and Woomera today. The purpose of his visit, among other things, is to negotiate with the Australian Government, and with me as the representative of the Government, the future of the Woomera range in relation to the Joint Project. We have to bear in mind that the Woomera range came into existence as a result of an agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia. Mr Stonehouse arrived on Sunday. He left for Salisbury yesterday. He is in Woomera today. He will return to Canberra tonight and will be here until Friday. The Minister for Defence and I will hold a series of conferences with him. I should add that a team of United Kingdom advisers came out in advance of Mr Stonehouse to discuss with my officers the various elements of a new agreement. I hope to be in a position, if not this week then certainly in the week after the Senate resumes sitting, to make a statement on the negotiations and the future role of the Woomera range.

page 941

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, relates to one which was asked last Tuesday, 7th May, by Senator Sim and in which he asked Senator Wright whether he could have the Attorney-General make a statement on the alleged activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in the University of Western Australia. I ask the Minister whether he is in a position to inform the Senate when he will be able to make that statement?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is no.

page 941

QUESTION

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that people engaged in the industry claim that the price to be paid for potatoes is fixed at meetings of merchants in Sydney, usually on Monday mornings? J might say that the price so fixed is often the cause of serious dissatisfaction. Will the Attorney-General have a look at that procedure and its implications under the Trade Practices Act?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I assure the honourable senator that, at his suggestion, I shall certainly ask the Attorney-General to inquire into this matter. I apprehend that there has been over many years a course of dealing in which the marketing of potatoes is a matter of consultation, and maybe combine fixing, at the Sydney market. But I shall see that the matter is inquired into.

page 941

QUESTION

APPLES

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister sufficiently aware of the true nature of the crisis in the fruit industry in Tasmania? Does he realise that overseas ships are leaving for United Kingdom and European ports only half filled? Is he aware that apple growers in Tasmania are cancelling shipments daily because they know that to send the fruit would incur an economic loss which they cannot possibly bear? Is the Minister aware that tens of thousands of cases of first class apples will fall to the ground and rot unless a market or some outlet is found for them? In view of the breaking of the drought on the mainland, thus obviating the necessity of the expected Treasury expenditure of many millions of dollars, will the Minister give urgent consideration to the deep human tragedy associated with this critical situation in the apple industry in Tasmania?

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Replying to the first part of the question, the Government is as I announced last week aware of the situation facing apple growers in Tasmania. The situation in which ships are leaving Tasmania at the present time only half loaded or sparsely loaded has been brought about by a lack of confidence in the market overseas among Australian fruit growers. This is understandable. Dealing with the matter on a wider basis, one of the other reasons is the scarcity of fruit available throughout the rest of Australia. The Government is fully aware of the adversities which the Tasmanian fruit growers have suffered. First they had bush fires to contend with and then large quantities of fruit were tied up in the Suez Canal. Now there is this uncertainty of markets. Although the Government is concerned about the situation there is very little that it could have done up to this point of time. I shall transmit to the Minister for Primary Industry the second part of the honourable senator’s question to see whether it is possible for something to be done to assist these unfortunate growers.

page 942

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator McMANUS:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Is it a fact that there is no means test for a single blind pensioner but there is one for a married blind pensioner? If so, why?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall get this information for the honourable senator from the Minister for Social Services.

page 942

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science seen reports of a statement by Emeritus Professor Herbert Burton of trie Australian National University to a conference in Melbourne of the Australian College of Education, that Commonwealth university scholarships were becoming harder to get and that there were not enough to assist all able applicants? Is the Minister aware that Professor Burton drew attention to the fact that the percentage of university students being offered scholarships had fallen between 1951 and 1966 from 58% to 27% and urged that the number of scholarships be increased by 2,000 a year until the present number of 6,000 was doubled? Does the Minister agree that the figures quoted by Professor Burton, if correct, indicate a dwindling opportunity for students to undertake university courses through these scholarships? In any event, will the Minister indicate whether the Government has any plans to. improve the .situation?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator can be assured that 1, speaking for the Government, am always sympathetic to any point of view which constructively promotes the cause of education. But in all tolerance it is hardly fair that I should be confronted with a statement on specific percentages which, unfortunately, has not come to my notice. To give an answer which would be of advantage to the Senate I would need to consider the question. I will do that and will then make a supplementary

Statement. I only - want’ to, add that if the percentage . of Commonwealth scholarships for university enrolments Ms dwindling it is due to the great assistance that has been given with a view to increasing university enrolments, and to the fact thai the Government has sponsored a greatly increased aggregate number of Commonwealth scholarships in recent years.

page 942

QUESTION

VOTING AGE

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate believe that a lad of 20 years is a mature man or a youth? If the Minister thinks that such a lad is mature enough to be conscripted to fight in Vietnam, why is not such a person given a vote in Federal elections unless he is serving in Vietnam? .

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The question of the voting age clearly is a matter of policy.

page 942

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator RIDLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, arises out of an answer given by the Postmaster-General to a question asked by me on behalf of 795 voters who signed a petition relative to a departmental decision to close down a post office over a century old in favour of a new post office in the new Arndale shopping complex in South Australia. In explanation, I .quote the answer given by the PostmasterGeneral:

It is usual in these circumstances to review the need for nearby post offices and as the Sturt nonofficial Post Office is located within 500 yards of the proposed Oaklands Park Post Office, its retention could no longer be justified.

As I am advised that the estimate of less than 500 yards is grossly inaccurate; will the Postmaster-General check all the ramifications of the advice he has received and will he review his previous answer in the light of the further information that I have given today?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-I well recall the answer, which came through me, from the Postmaster-General. I think the answer was detailed, but I will place before my colleague the comments of the honourable senator.

page 943

PETITIONS

Senator BRANSON:

– Before I ask my questionI apologise to you, Mr President, for not having notified you that I intended to ask it. I do not think the Leader of the Government in the Senate caught the purport of my question. Are minors - by that I mean school children - allowed to sign petitions for presentation to the Parliament? Could not the presentation of petitions become a farce if school children are allowed to sign petitions in respect of the war in Vietnam?

The PRESIDENT:

– Nothing in the Standing Orders denies a minor the right to sign a petition. .

page 943

QUESTION

IRON ORE

(Question No. 11)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice,:

  1. What is the present capacity of Commonwealth Railways to haul iron ore from Frances Creek to Darwin?
  2. Is the expected tempo of ore delivery for the Japanese market expected to reach 12,000 tons per week?
  3. Will Commonwealth Railways be able to meet these commitments?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

-I have received the following reply from the Minister:

  1. 9,900 tons per week.
  2. Yes.
  3. When locomotives on order are delivered, Itis expected that Commonwealth Railways will have the capacity to move 13,200 tons of ore per week.

page 943

QUESTION

HEART DISEASE

(Question No. 49)

Senator MURPHY:
through Senator O’Byrne

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What research is being conducted in Australia into the prevention and cure of heart disease?
  2. In what institutions is the research being conducted?
  3. How many research persons are engaged on this work full time? 4 How many research persons are engaged on this work part time, and what is the equivalent in persons engaged full time?
  4. Approximately how much is spent annually directly on this research?
  5. Is any of this research being conducted directly by the Commonwealth or any of its instrumentalities?
  6. In what way is the Commonwealth participating?
  7. What is its actual contribution in (a) research personnel and (b) finance?
  8. In what other way is the Commonwealth supporting such research?
  9. What are the extent and circumstances of any major’ contributions to such research in Australia by overseas countries?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: 1 and 2. A considerable amount of research Is carried out in Australia into the prevention and cure of heart disease. This ranges through basic’ sciences, clinical research, therapeutic and development of methods of treatment. Such research is being carried out in all Australian universities having medical schools, in a number of research institutes and in most of the larger hospitals.

  1. It is not practicable to give accurate figures for the number of persons engaged in this field of research. The National Health and Medical Research Council makes grants to projects involving 14 senior research workers to which must be added a number of supporting staff. The National Heart Foundation estimates that it supports 70 persons including ancillary staff.
  2. Many clinicians in Australian hospitals are undertaking part time research in. this field and it is not possible to obtain accurate figures.
  3. The identifiable funds which have been made available for heart research in Australia during the past year total $533,300. These funds have come ‘ principally from the National Heart Foundation with smaller contributions from the National. Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Grants Committee and the Life Offices Medical Research Fund of Australia and New Zealand. A small contribution was received from overseas. To this must be added money provided by universities and hospitals from general funds and private endowments, details’ regarding which are not available. The Commonwealth does not directly undertake research of this kind. Its assistance is by way of direct financial support through the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Grants Committee. Currently this amounts to $75,000 per annum. 6, 7, 8 and 9. Recently, the clinical research unit of the John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, was established to conduct research, mainly into heart diseases, in a special ward at the Canberra Community Hospital. The cost of the unit is to be shared by the University and the Hospital. The research staff of 15 are part of the University staff. The Hospital has allocated 12 beds to the unit and provides the necessary nursing and supporting staff.
  4. The major overseas contribution to heart research in Australia comes from the United States National Institute of Health which this year is contributing $5,000 to one project.

page 944

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 84)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many migrants entered Australia from Mauritius during the past 3 years?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has replied as follows:

The Commonwealth Statistician has not, in the past, maintained figures of settler arrivals from Mauritius. It has been arranged however that such figures will be maintained from 1st January 1968. Settler arrivals from Mauritius, Kenya, Uganda and other Commonwealth countries in Africa, other than South Africa, Malawi, Rhodesia and Zambia, are normally combined by the Commonwealth Statistician in a category entitled Other Commonwealth Countries in Africa’ for which settler arrivals for the last 3 years were as follows:

In order to isolate settler arrivals from Mauritius only, estimates have been made based on approved applications for entry into Australia by residents and on other supporting information. These estimates are as follows:

page 944

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 92)

Senator HENDRICKSON:
through Sena tor O’Byrne

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Under which clauses of the SEATO or ANZUS agreements is Australia involved in the civil war in Vietnam?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The conflict in Vietnam is not a civil war. Australia has provided military and other assistance to the Republic of Vietnam at the request of the Government of that country. The provision of this assistance is in conformity with Australia’s obligations under the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty and Protocol.

See also the answer given on 5 May 1966 to Senate question on notice No. 876, Hansard page 800.

page 944

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

(Question No. 107)

Senator MURPHY:
through Senator O’Byrne

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory are of school age?
  2. How many attend secondary school?
  3. Has any Aboriginal in the Northern Territory ever completed secondary school?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No full-blood Aboriginal has yet gone beyond third year high school in the Northern Territory. A number of part Aboriginal students have completed the leaving year in community schools and moved into trades and professions.

page 944

QUESTION

NORTH WEST CAPE COMMUNICATIONS BASE

(Question No. 129)

Senator CANT:

asked the Minister repre senting the Prime Minister, upon notice:

With reference to a letter which Senator Cant received from the Prime Minister, late in 1967, indicating that the Government would introduce legislation to provide Workers’ Compensation and Common Law protection for Australian workers employed at the North West Cape Communications Base, when is it likely that legislation to give effect to this promise will be placed before the Parliament?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The necessary legislation to give effect to the Government’s decision in this matter is in the course of preparation but complex matters are involved. Every effort is being made to introduce it as quickly as possible.

page 945

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR THE ARMY

(Question No. 149)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Is it a fact that a Supreme Court writ has been issued against the Minister for the Army for allegedly disclosing to a rival firm the methods he learned whilst an employee of another firm? If so, will this restrict him in his intentions to use his knowledge of business administration in the reorganisation of the Department of the Army?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

The answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is: Yes, such a writ was issued in November 1966. The answer to the second part is that the Minister will not be restricted in the administration of his portfolio.

page 945

QUESTION

IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

(Question No. 189)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What legal or departmental action has been or will be taken against those firms who allegedly imported goods from Japan and evaded the payment of all or part of the customs duty payable on such goods?
  2. What are the names of the firms, both Japanese and Australian, allegedly involved in the transactions?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I now furnish the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. A lengthy and comprehensive investigation by officers of the Department of Customs and Excise has suggested that some Japanese and Australian companies have entered into collusion on a large scale to avoid customs duties and to defeat the protection accorded to Australian manufacturers. The Government has decided to take legal action against these companies and to agree to requests from any of the companies involved for the cases to be heard under part XV of the Customs Act. As the time provided for companies to indicate their consent for cases to be heard under Part XV of the Customs Act has not yet expired, proceedings have not as yet commenced.
  2. Until such time as proceedings have been instituted the Government is not prepared to disclose the names of the firms involved.

page 945

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

(Question No. 201)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the

Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. How many non-fully automatic telephone exchanges exist in New South Wales, and where are they located?
  2. Has any programme been laid down for conversion to fully automatic exchanges?
  3. When is it anticipated that this type of service will become available to all residents of the Stale?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer:

  1. At present there are nine non-fully automatic exchanges known as ‘remotely controlled semiautomatic exchanges’, in New South Wales. These arc situated in the following locations:
  1. Not at this stage. In most instances, the wide dispersion of subscribers in the areas concerned and the length of privately erected and maintained portions of their exchange lines make them technically unsuitable for fully automatic working. However, the main benefit of automatic working at the smaller exchanges - continuous service - is available to subscribers connected to remotely controlled semi-automatic exchanges.
  2. It is the aim of the Post Office to provide fully automatic services throughout the Commonwealth and steady progress is being made in this direction. Some 87% of subscribers’ services in New South Wales are now connected to automatic exchanges but it is not practicable to forecast when fully automatic telephone service will be available to all residents in that State.

page 945

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 208)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What supervision is exercised by the Department of Civil Aviation in ensuring that all emergency safety equipment on Qantas aircraft is in good working order?
  2. Was ineffective equipment accidentally found on Qantas DC4 aircraft VH-EDB on15th March and 22nd March?
  3. Did the ineffective equipment include inoperative escape ropes and emergency lights and torches and a crewlife jacket missing?
  4. Is it a fact that on 31st March a trained instructor took 10 minutes to manipulate an escape slide at one of the exits of a Qantas Electra aircraft which operates daily to New Zealand?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer:

  1. The answer to this question involves three phases of activity:

    1. In the first place all the equipment is designed, manufactured and installed to standards approved by the Department.
    2. The maintenance programme is defined in terms of tests and inspections to be performed, the periods at which they are to be performed and the methods by which they are to be performed. These and any changes involving extension of inspection periods or test methods are approved “in advance by the Department’s officers. The extent and nature of these checks arc set out in the Qantas Maintenance System Manual.
    3. Surveillance inspectionsof all maintenance and overhaul procedures are conducted by departmental officers at frequent periods to ensure that the company’s activities are being conducted in accordance with the approved procedures.
  2. Ineffective equipment was found on the 15th March, but no such finding can be substantiated for the 22nd March.
  3. On15th March, when an aircraft was being used for ground training purposes whilst out of servicefor maintenance, it was found that the escape rope stowage arrangement was not completely satisfactory in that the rope would not always pull out easily from its stowed position. Immediately this situation was found, the operator took steps to provide a satisfactory stowage.” One emergency light was also found to be unserviceable and was immediately changed. No evidence of missing torches or missing life jackets having been reported can befound. In any case, such equipment is checked prior to every flight so that deficiencies can be rectified before departure.
  4. It is true that a trained instructor took 10 minutes to manipulate an escape slide at one of the exits of a Qantas Electra aircraft. I am informed that at the time he was instructing flight stewards on the Electra emergency equipment and procedures, and was demonstrating the escape slide step by step for their benefit. The time taken therefore cannot be related to the time which would be taken during an actual service emergency.

page 946

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

(Question No. 216)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister’ for External Affairs, upon notice: 1.. Is the Australian Embassy in Yugoslavia still operating from the Majestic Hotel in Belgrade?

  1. What efforts have been made to acquire a modern embassy building?
  2. Is the site of such an establishment to be in the new or the old portion of the city of Belgrade?
  3. Does Australia have any other embassy which operates in a similar limited site as in Belgrade?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. No. The Australian Embassy at Belgrade is located at offices at No. 9 Bulevar Revolucije in the old city.
  2. The present office is on lease until 14th August 1968, and the lease is renewable after that date. The Embassy has also been exploring the possibility of purchasing a property for long term use.
  3. Because of the proximity of other diplomatic missions and government departments, a site in the old portion of the city is preferred.
  4. The Australian Embassy at Beirut, part of which has been operating in an hotel, is about to be consolidated in modern office accommodation. The only other mission at present operating its office from hotel accommodation is the Australian Embassy at Ankara, which was established on 25th April 1968. It is not unusual for a country, on opening a new diplomatic mission, to operate initially from a hotel while suitable office accommodation is being sought.

page 946

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 238)

Senator WHEELDON:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that there is considerable dissatisfaction in Perth due to thelong time which it usually takes to obtain an answer when telephone users dial the numbers which have to be dialled in order to make country and interstate trunk calls?
  2. Why does it take so long?
  3. Can something be done to improve the situation?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answers:

  1. The Department has received a number of complaints about the delay in answer from the trunk booking levels in Perth and it is acknowledged that the standard of service at that centre is below that which the Department aims to provide.
  2. The main factor influencing the prevailing standard of service is the sustainedgrowthwhich has been experienced in trunk line traffic out of Perth, particularly on interstate calls which in recent, months have increased by some 23% over the same period last year.
  3. Some improvement in the standard of service on intrastate calls is expected when subscriber trunk dialling is made available from

Perth to a number of additional country centres later this year. Additional switchboard equipment will be installed as soon as the necessary accommodation can be arranged and the switchboards manufactured. In the meantime all possible efforts will be made to minimise inconvenience to callers.

page 947

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) has announced in another place the appointment of Mr Richard Hugh Caiger Watson as a Commissioner of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and of Mr Edward George Deverall as a Conciliator. The appointment of Mr Watson willfill one of the two offices of Commissioner left vacant with the retirement of Commissioner Donovan and the death of Commissioner Findlay. The appointment of Mr Deverall will increase the number of Conciliators to four, as recommended in the annual report of the President of the Commission, Sir Richard Kirby.

page 947

STATES GRANTS (DROUGHT ASSISTANCE) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

Honourable senators will recall that in a statement to the Senate on 27th March I outlined the action being taken by the Commonwealth to help alleviate problems arising from the drought. The present Bill is designed to give legislative effect to one of the measures to which I referred in that statement. 1 shall shortly introduce a closely related Bill, the States Grants (Drought Reimbursement) Bill 1968, which is designed to give legislative effect to a second set of drought assistance measures.

The purpose of the present Bill is to authorise the payment in 1967-68 of special revenue assistance totalling $14m to the four drought affected States - New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. An amount of $13m is to be divided between these four Stales in proportion to the financial assistance grants they will receive this year under the grants formula. The other$1m is to be provided to Victoria in recognition of the effects on that State’s budget position of special problems which drought has brought to it. It is estimated that the distribution of the $14m will be approximately as follows:

This special assistance is intended primarily to help the States in meeting the adverse effects of drought on their revenues. Hence it is proposed that it be in the form of grants, which the States can use as they see fit. Similar grants of$8m to New South Wales and $2.75m to Queensland were made in 1966-67. As some honourable senators may have noticed, the Victorian Premier has indicated that the offer of additional Commonwealth assistance to his State was an important factor in his Government’s recent decision to subsidise purchases of oats and wheat by drought affected farmers. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motionby Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 947

STATES GRANTS (DROUGHT REIMBURSEMENT) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Anderson) read a first time.

Second. Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise reimbursement of the States of Victoria and South Australia for expenditure by those States on certain drought relief measures. Current estimates suggest that expenditure by Victoria on these measures will amount to about $7. 5m in this financial year and expenditure by South Australia to about $J.15m. However, in case larger amounts should be required, authority is sought to pay up to$10m to Victoria and up to $5m to South Australia.

In accordance with arrangements agreed with the governments; of Victoria and South Australia last October, the Commonwealth. ls reimbursing these two States for all expenditure incurred by them since 1st October on relief measures similar to those which New South Wales and Queensland have been applying and which the Commonwealth has also been financing. These measures were outlined in some detail in my earlier statement. They include:

  1. loans to farmers for carry-on and restocking purposes where credit is not available through normal commercial channels; -
  2. subsidisation of the cost of rail transportation - and in some cases road transportation - of starving slock out of drought areas, stock being returned to areas that have recovered from drought, and fodder and water to drought affected areas;
  3. grants to local councils and other authorities to provide relief work in drought areas for persons who are unemployed as a result of the drought or who, because of the drought, are temporarily unable to work their farms;
  4. miscellaneous expenditures by the States, including expenditure on running costs of additional cloud seeding operations and special measures to maintain water supplies in drought affected areas.

I should point out that the Bill authorises reimbursement of expenditure on drought relief measures by Victoria and South Australia after the end of 1967-68. Before then, however, the Government will have to consider, in consultation with the States, to what extent and for how long the present drought assistance arrangements will need to be continued. With the recent very welcome improvement in seasonal conditions we are hopeful that the need for drought relief expenditure by the States, and the need for Commonwealth assistance, will rapidly diminish.

This Bill and the preceding Bill represent tangible evidence of the Government’s recognition of the need to help alleviate the effects of drought. Commonwealth financial assistanceprovided since 1965-66 for State expenditure on drought relief measures could reach about $59m by the end of the present financial year. In addition, the Commonwealth will also have provided in this period nearly $25m by way of special revenue assistance to the drought affected States. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 948

VICTORIA GRANT (RIVER MURRAY SALINITY) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Scott) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT (Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise) [4.251 - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In introducing the Maraboon Dam Bill I foreshadowed my intention to introduce a further Bill relating to a grant being made by the Government under the national water resources development programme. The grant in this case is to the State of Victoria, and is for an amount of $3. 6m to cover the cost of works to reduce the flow of saline water in the River Murray. The general provisions of the Bill now before the Senate are almost identical with those in the Maraboon Dam Bill, and I will therefore confine my remarks to the works which the Victorian Government will carry out on the projects for which finance is being provided.

Honourable senators will have heard a good deal of the difficulties being experienced by irrigators and other water users along the Murray Valley. The water supply situation has been aggravated in recent years by increasing salinity in the middle and lower reaches of the river, as a result of which the operation of the storages controlled by the River Murray Commission has had to be modified in order to make available substantial releases to meet requirements for control of water quality, over and above the quantities required for use by the three States.

In the normal course of events, one would expect a problem of this type to build up gradually, allowing time for detailed study and formulation of plans for remedial measures. Indeed, the River Murray Commission, of which the Minister for National Development is President, last year appointed well known and widely experienced consultants to advise it on all aspects of salinity in the River Murray, in order that a comprehensive plan for remedial measures could be drawn up and implemented. Unfortunately, in the abnormal conditions over the past eight months or so, the problem assumed great urgency, and the Government therefore decided to give special consideration, ahead of the other submissions, to three proposals put forward by the Victorian Government to assist in dealing with the problem.

These proposals all involved pumping or saline water, mainly drainage from irrigation areas, to natural depressions away from the river, which could act as evaporating basins. Two of the projects are located in the Sunraysia, area, the third being near Kerang, at the lower end of the Torrumbarry system. In the Sunraysia area, the larger project involves the pumping of saline water from Lake Hawthorne, which acts as a sump receiving underground drainage from a large part of the Mildura area, and delivering it to natural depressions about 7 miles away, where it will evaporate. The works involved the construction of a pumping station, a pipeline and channel, and embankment to enlarge the evaporating area to about 3,000 acres.

The other project in the Sunraysia area involved similar treatment in relation to drainage water from the Red Cliffs area but would have diverted a much smaller quantity of salt - about 8,000 tons per year compared with about 27,000 tons per year from the Lake Hawthorne project - at a much higher cost per ton of salt removed. It is apparent that this project is less useful and less urgent than the other two. The third project involves two small weirs near Kerang to divert water to the proposed pumping station on Barr Creek which carries the drainage from a large part of the Torrumbarry irrigation system. From the pumping station water will be delivered to Lake Tutchewop some 6 miles away and to other natural depressions in the vicinity. This project would result in the removal of about the same quantity of salt per year as the Lake Hawthorne project. The estimated cost of the Lake Hawthorne project is $1.6m and the Barr Creek project $2m.

After due consideration of the three proposals, the Government decided, pending the report by the salinity consultants, and a decision by the River Murray Commission regarding overall responsibility for works of this nature, that finance would be provided under the national water resources development programme to enable the two most important of the projects to be carried out in time for the benefits to be available for the next irrigation season. It is not possible to make a normal assessment of the economic merits of these proposals, but Barr Creek is known to be one of the major sources of saline water, including the so called ‘slugs’ of saline water which periodically cause such trouble in the irrigation areas downstream. Lake Hawthorne in its present condition is not able to hold all the drainage water it receives, and leakage from the lake seriously increases the salinity in the Mildura pool and downstream along the River Murray.

From studies of the river regulation, it is clear that, on the basis of assigning !o these projects the credit for saying in water which would otherwise be required for dilution problems, the projects are extremely attractive. As I have indicated, they were given special urgent consideration because of their importance to the three States concerned in improving the water supply in the River Murray next season. As I mentioned earlier, the general provisions of the Bill are similar to the Queensland Grant (Maraboon Dam) Bill and I need not detain honourable senators by outlining them again. I commend the Bill to the consideration of the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poyser) adjourned.

page 949

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Wright) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill bs now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to make provision in the Papua and New Guinea Act for further steps in the constitutional development of Papua and New Guinea in harmony with the recommendations of the third report of the Select Committee of the Territory House of Assembly on Constitutional Development. That report was the subject of a ministerial statement to the Senate on 27th October 1967 and was circulated to honourable senators at the time. The principal object of the changes now proposed is to provide increased participation by elected members in the executive government ‘ of the Territory through the establishment of a system of ministerial members. The Bill also proposes ‘ changes in some other matters and some machinery amendments.

In conformity with the second report of the Select Committee, the Papua and New Guinea Act was amended by this Parliament in 1966 to increase the elected membership of the House of Assembly to eighty-four. The number of open electorates was increased by twenty-five, and the ten seats previously reserved for non-indigenous candidates were replaced by fifteen new seats, restricted lo candidates with specified minimum educational qualifications. The number of official members was left unchanged at ten. Following, these changes in the Act elections were held early this year in the Territory- on the new basis.

The establishment of the House of Assembly in 1964 brought into being a representative legislature in the Territory. In 1966 changes were made in its composition in the light of experience and these should enable the House of Assembly through the increased number of electorates to reflect more effectively the views of the people of the Territory.

The proposals now being submitted to the Parliament represent an important advance on the side of the executive government distinct from the side of the legislature. The present Bill will provide for elected members to assume certain responsibilities in the administration of the Territory both in day to day administrative activi- tics and in the framing of policies. Seven elected members of the House of Assembly will be appointed as ministerial members. They would have administrative responsibilities in relation to specified functions of the Territory Administration. They would represent their departments in the House of Assembly. They would be members of the Administrator’s Executive Council. The Administrator’s Executive Council would replace the present Administrator’s Council. The new Council would consist of. the seven ministerial members, three official members and the Administrator. The Administrator might also nominate to the Minister for appointment to the Council an additional elected member of the House who was not a ministerial member.

The Administrator’s Executive Council will play an increasingly important role in the development of policy in the Territory as well as in major executive decisions of the Administration. Certain Territory ordinances already require the Administrator to seek the advice of the Council and in such- cases where he does not accept the advice of the Council he is required to table his reasons in the House of Assembly. He may also seek the advice of the Council on other matters. Apart from the present statutory provisions the Administrator hasprogressively enlarged both the range and significance of the matters brought before the Council for consultation and will continue to do so.

The role and importance of the Council would be further enhanced under the proposed ministerial member system. In matters of budget policy and planning, the Council would have the final’ responsibility within the Territory for advising the Administrator. Ministerial members would constitute a significant majority of the Council. In relation to their departmental functions they would make recommendations to the Council and, if authorised by the Administrator, could introduce any matters for discussion in the Council. The cumulative effect of these arrangements, as foreseen by the Select Committee, would be that,- subject to the duty and responsibility of -the Administrator acting on behalf of the Australian Government to administer the Territory, .the Council would be the principal instrument of policy .of the- executive government of the Territory. As recommended by the Select Committee, in accordance with generally established practice members of the Council would not publicly oppose policies or decisions that were in accordance with the advice of the Council.

Combined with their role in the Administrator’s Executive Council ministerial members would also have administrative responsibilities in relation to specified functions of the Administration. In relation to these functions ministerial members would be responsible with the departmental head for overall departmental activities and for the framing of policy proposals including proposals for expenditure. The management and public service aspects of the conduct of departments would remain the responsibility of departmental heads. The administrative functions exercised by a ministerial ‘ member would be derived from the Administrator. In accordance with the general transitional character of these arrangements, where there was a difference of view between a ministerial member and a departmental head the matter would go to the Administrator for decision. In the House of Assembly ministerial members would represent the Administration in relation to those functions assigned to them, for example, regarding questions and motions in the House. They would introduce and have the carriage of legislation.

It is proposed that in addition to the seven ministerial members there will also bc appointed up to ten assistant ministerial members. The purpose here is to provide a form of junior ministerial office designed to allow elected members to work with departmental heads and to undertake work of a ministerial nature. Responsibility however would remain with the departmental head. As suggested by the Select Committee, the duties of these assistant ministerial members would be specified and would follow the lines indicated in the Committee’s report.

Section 25, as introduced by clause 6 of the Bill, indicates the functions of ministerial members and assistant ministerial members on the basis I have described and provides for these matters to be set out in detail in arrangements approved by the Minister. Arrangements for the appointment of ministerial members and assistant ministerial members and for the termination of appointment would follow the recommendations of the Select Committee and it is intended that they would be set out in detail in regulations. The procedure contemplated is that the House would establish a standing nominations committee of five elected members. This committee would consult with the Administrator to agree on a list of elected members equal to the number of ministerial offices. The agreed list would then be submitted to the House of Assembly for approval as a list of elected members to be appointed to ministerial offices. If the House of Assembly approved the list the Minister would make the necessary appointments of seven ministerial members and up to ten assistant ministerial members. The same procedure would be used to fill a vacancy in a ministerial office. The allocation of functions among holders of ministerial office would be approved by the Minister and these functions could be reallocated from time to time. In all these matters affecting ministerial offices, the Minister’s powers would be exercised only on the recommendation of the Administrator or after consultation with him.

Should it become necessary for the appointment of a ministerial or assistant ministerial member to be terminated other than by resignation, a similar procedure would normally be employed. To meet possible contingencies the Bill would also authorise the Governor-General to terminate an appointment if after report by the Administrator to the Minister the GovernorGeneral were satisfied that this was in the public interest. These arrangements for the appointment of ministerial members and assistant ministerial members are designed on the one hand to give the House of Assembly a full voice in these appointments and on the other hand to recognise the essential responsibilities of the Administrator and the Minister.

The proposed arrangements are an important advance in the constitutional development of the Territory. Through those elected members who are appointed to ministerial office the House of Assembly will be brought closely into the business of administration and into the making of policy. They would provide experience in the responsibilities of government both of a day to day character and of an overall policy nature. It must be borne in mind that they are essentially transitional in character and, as I have noted,’ they leave the final responsibility of administering the Territory with the Administrator acting on behalf of the Australian Government.

The Select Committee gave a good deal of attention to the proposition that the House of Assembly or elected members should be responsible for the preparation of a separate budget in respect of revenue raised within the Territory. In the present financial year’s estimates this constitutes about 34% of the total Administration receipts, 60% of the rest being accounted for by Commonwealth grant and 6% by loans guaranteed by the Commonwealth. The Select Committee rejected this proposal and expressed the opinion that the ‘ordered development of the Territory would be best served at this stage by a single budget covering all aspects of government spending’.

The Select Committee did, however, proposse an arrangement by. which members of the House who were not holders of ministerial office could channel budget proposals to ministerial members and the Administrator’s Executive Council. This was that the House of Assembly should nominate a budget standing committee of five elected members not- occupying ministerial office. This standing committee would not have executive authority but could in appropriate circumstances make recommendations. The views of the Select Committee on these matters are in accordance with the Government’s attitude and the Government has readily accepted them. No amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act are required to give effect to the proposal. The appointment of the proposed standing committee on the budget will be a matter for the new House of Assembly and the proposed role of the Administrator’s Executive Council in budget matters will come within the continuation and extension of the practice of consultation with the Council. In these ways there would bc ample scope for elected members to take a very active part in preparation of the whole budget. At the same time the proposed -arrangements recognise the need, while so much of the Territory’s revenues are provided by the Australian Government, for that Government to determine the broad strategy of the budget.

To sum up it will be seen that seven elected members would be appointed as ministerial members. They would have administrative responsibilities for specified functions of the Administration and would represent the Administration in respect of these functions in the House of Assembly. They would constitute a majority of the Administrator’s Executive Council which would become an increasingly important body. To. provide scope for experience in government for additional elected members up to ten assistant ministerial members would be appointed with duties and functions to be specified. These then are the main proposals on political advance.

The Government does not believe, however, that political development to the point of self-government or independence or other status which the Territory may ultimately assume can have substance if it is not accompanied by progress towards selfreliance in economic matters; in other words, political development cannot be divorced from economic development. At the same time it has to be recognised that the- road to economic development is a long hard road. Nor can the problems of achieving experience in administration at both the political and Public Service levels be overlooked. The acquisition of experience is not a process that lends itself to too much acceleration, but an experienced Public Service and a fund of experience at the political level are essential for efficient and stable government. I do emphasise the great importance which the Government attaches in the interests of the future of the people of the Territory to securing an effective balance between political and economic development and to securing advance in both areas at a rate which will be tolerable in human terms - that is, tolerable to the people of the Territory who are called upon to make such tremendous and rapid adjustments.

Another change proposed in the Bill is not related to the important proposals for the executive government of the Territory that I have explained. It relates to the Governor-General’s powers in connection with the withholding of assent. Under the present Act Ordinances on the general run of subjects may be assented to by the Administrator and the Governor-General is authorised to disallow such Ordinances in whole or in part. The Administrator may also reserve any Ordinance for the Governor-General to assent to it or to withhold assent. The Administrator is also required to reserve Ordinances on certain subjects for the Governor-General, lt is now proposed that in parallel with the existing authority to disallow in whole or in part Ordinances that have been assented to by the Administrator the Governor-General bc authorised also to withhold assent to part and assent to the remainder of a reserved Ordinance as an alternative to withholding assent from the whole Ordinance. The existing requirement that a statement of reasons for the withholding of assent or for disallowance be tabled in the Parliament would apply also to any withholding of assent to part of an Ordinance.

The power to disallow or to withhold assent has been exercised only rarely in the life of the last House of Assembly. The proposed change however would enable the possibility to be avoided qi a situation in which, because an inessential part of an Ordinance was unacceptable, assent would have to be withheld from the whole Ordinance or, if the procedure of the Ordinance being returned to the House with recommended amendments were followed, undue delay might occur. It may be helpful to an understanding of the Bill at this stage if the proposals I have described are related briefly and in general terms to the main clauses of the Bill.

Clause 5 inserts a new title to Part IV of the Act which will now be entitled ‘The Executive Government’. This change from the former title ‘Administration’ is associated with the general change in the structure of the executive government of the Territory which the proposed appointments of ministerial members and assistant ministerial members are designed to bring about. The main substance of the proposals is contained in clause 6 which inserts a new Division 2 and a new Division 3 in Part IV of the principal Act setting out provisions relating to the Administrator’s Executive Council and to ministerial members and assistant ministerial members respectively.

The proposed functions of the Administrator’s Executive Council are set out in section 19. The new proposed subsection (3) of this section provides that where he thinks it in the public interest to do so the Administrator may introduce or authorise the introduction in the Council of any matter for discussion in the Council. This new subsection reflects the progressive development in the processes of consulta tion to which I have already referred. The proposed section 25 lays down the framework within which the arrangements for ministerial members and assistant ministerialmembers would operate.

Clauses 7 to 9 contain provisions relating to the House of Assembly and clause 10 makes provision for priority to be obtained for urgent administration business in the House of Assembly on a message to the House by the Administrator. I need not here refer to the other clauses of the Bill.

In the Ministerial statement that was made to the Senate in October last year it was stated that the Government accepted the scheme of administration proposed by the Select Committee. It was indicated that all the Select Committee’s recommendations were acceptable to the Government with a single exception that was a matter of terminology, not of substance. This was that since the proposed ministerial officers would not be exercising the full executive responsibility and authority universally associated with the designation of minister, it was proposed to use instead the term ‘ministerial member’ and the corresponding term assistant ministerial member’.

In the amendments now proposed to the Papua and New Guinea Act to give effect to the new scheme of administration it is the institutional framework rather than the operational arrangements that we are concerned with, but I have sought to explain how the system will operate within that institutional framework. Some of the more detailed arrangements, such as the procedure by which nominations to ministerial offices will be arrived at between the House of Assembly and the Administrator, will, as I have mentioned, be set out in regulations. In some matters also the proposals will provide a measure of flexibility. For example, under proposed section 25 the roles of ministerial members and assistant ministerial members may be adapted in the light of experience. The Papua and New Guinea Act may be regarded as the Constitution of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. It is the responsibility of this Parliament to provide through this Act the institutions for an adequate and effective system of government for the Territory - institutions that must be adapted from time to time to match ‘ the evolving Territory situation. The main substance of the proposals in this Bill is concerned with giving effect to recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Assembly. The changes in the system of executive government now proposed are therefore not changes that the Government seeks to impose upon the Territory. They are, on the contrary, changes which the Government has readily accepted as an important forward constitutional step completely in line with the high policy objective of orderly and peaceable constitutional development.

The Select Committee took great trouble to consult the people of the Territory in public and open hearings. The report was accepted by the House of Assembly without dissent and it may confidently be said that the report reflects the view of the overwhelming majority of the people of the Territory. Much effort has been devoted to working out the proposals for the new system of administration and I pay tribute to the work of the elected and the official members of the Select Committee.

The new House of Assembly is to meet in Port Moresby on 4th June next. The Government is anxious to see the necessary amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act made in good time to enable the scheme of administration now proposed to start to operate during the first meeting so that from the beginning elected members of the new House will be able to play their part in the increased sharing of responsibility in the government of the Territory that is envisaged in these proposals in harmony with the views of the people themselves.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 954

NAVAL DEFENCE BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from I May (vide page 733), on motion by Senator McKellar:

That the BUI be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish to point out that amendments to the Naval Defence Act were introduced first on 26th October 1967 but were not debated. They followed very closely upon a number of industrial disputes in naval establishments. The provisions of the Naval Defence Bin 1967 were viewed with a great deal of suspicion by the unions concerned and by the people who worked in the establishments. Since then the Federal

Parliamentary Labor Party’s Industrial Committee has had a number of discussions with the Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly) and has met representatives of the Naval Board. Quite an amount of disquiet still exists in relation to the provisions of the Bill. Generally speaking, the Committee cannot see a sound reason for introducing the proposed amendments to sections 41 and 42 of the Act. Although the Minister’s reasons have been made well known - I will refer to them later on - our spokesman in another place has pointed out the kind of problems which the unions anticipate will arise.

Consideration should be given to the fact that very bad industrial relations exist in naval dockyards. I know that the Minister for the Navy has mentioned this. Apparently it is due to a lack of liaison between management and the unions concerned. Conciliation Commissioner Moran and others have criticised this state of affairs. Seemingly a number of administrative acts have encouraged the bad relationship that exists. Possibly some of the disputes could be obviated if a proper basic relationship existed between the people who work in the industry and the management. Following upon what the Minister for the Navy said in his second reading speech, it seems to me that there should be a very quick and thorough examination of conditions in the dockyards and the methods by which the Naval Board arranges to have its representatives deal with a variety of conditions, including wages.

The purpose of the Bill, to use the words of the Minister, is to remove some unsatisfactory features of section 41 of the Naval Defence Act, which relates to the employment of civil staff by the Department of the Navy, other than administrative and clerical staff employed under the Public Service Act. The first reason given by the Minister was that the prescribing of periods of engagement by regulation was impracticable because the staff was engaged on either a temporary or a permament basis. The second reason given by the Minister was that to prescribe all conditions of service by regulation was complicated and impracticable because the conditions varied.

The Minister for the Navy and his representative here, the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar), gave an estimate of the number of times that disputes would arise in relation to dirty or cramped work. The Minister for the Navy said that such disputes would arise two or three times a week. That does not correspond with the information which our Industrial Committee obtained and which we put to the Minister. Our information, gained from the unions concerned, is that disputes concerning dirty work, disability rates, and so on, arises rarely. I should say that conditions for which it is necessary to prescribe disability rates occur generally in the engineering and manufacturing trades and usually involve members of the metal trades unions. These rates have become fairly well established. I should say that the approach to the fixing of rates for cramped or dirty work ought to be pretty well established. The Opposition cannot understand why a more streamlined approach to the situation cannot be adopted. Wc cannot see why certain procedures should bc proposed in the legislation and why so many disputes’ should occur. There have been disputes recently about cleaning up ships before work is commenced. The reasons given by the Minister do not completely satisfy the Opposition.

The other situation with which the Minister dealt was that which applies under regulation 5 of the Naval Establishments Regulations whereby the Naval Board may determine rates of pay, allowances, leave and other matters affecting an employee. Such determinations are not brought back before the Parliament in the form of regulations. The reason given for the proposed change in the procedure’ is that some doubt has been expressed by, I think, the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) and it might be challenged legally in the future. It is proposed to introduce into the Act a number of very important sections which, it would seem to the unions, will have a’ very extensive effect and which, have caused the concern to which I have referred.

The Minister has stated that there is need for flexibility in determining conditions of service in situations where, for example, boilermakers, welders or fitters may say: This job has not been cleaned up satisfactorily’ or There should bc a special rate for disability’. However, I put to the Government that this kind of situation has obtained for many years. Regardless of what I have said about industrial relationships in dockyards, generally speaking questions of that kind have been settled in the usual way, as they would be settled in outside industry. 1 do not know whether personnel employed by the Naval Board are up to date in relation to determinations made in outside industry to settle special disability rales following very quick discussions between the unions, sometimes shop delegates and management, but there seems to have been difficulty in settling the smaller issues which have arisen in the past. I shall refer to one such case later.

One of the most important points I want to make is that the Government claims that it is necessary to introduce special provisions in the Act to overcome certain situations but it appears to us that the power already exists. Situations such as that can be covered by regulation. Regulation 5 of the Naval Establishments Regulations is the relevant provision. Representatives of the unions and of management can confer directly to establish special rates of pay to cover special conditions. The only substance in the Government’s approach to the need for the amendment to the Act is in the matter of legality.

The Naval Defence Bill 1967 contained another clause which created the kind of suspicions to which I have- already referred. It was clause 7 which : sought to amend section 45 of the Act “relating to the discipline of officers and mcn. That was another reason for reaction against the swift passage of the Bill. I must admit quite frankly that when I say we are pleased that the clause has been withdrawn as a result of discussions between the Opposition, the unions and the Government; there is a background story. To sum up our position, we put to the Government that the conditions of employment can be prescribed by regulations and otherwise, as has been stated by the Minister, and that this procedure allows considerable control by the Parliament. The proposed new sections in the Act remove .that control from the Parliament. Proposed section 42a of the Bill provides that the Naval Board may, by instrument in, writing, bring about changes’ in .conditions which will affect a large, number of workers whose standards generally should relate to the classifications, that exist in outside industry. That is one worry that we have.

Secondly, apart- from the removal of some parliamentary control over conditions which cover naval employees, the Naval

Board may delegate to particular people the duty of setting out conditions in relation to the workers except, as the Minister has been quick to point out and as I admit, that the unions will have the opportunity to bargain and negotiate. Overall, the situation is that whatever the new Bill seeks to do can be done at the present time. The argument has been advanced that this new legislation will provide. flexibility so that urgent attention can be given to claims for special disability rates. That certainly has not been the experience in the past in negotiations with dockyard employees. There have been a number of disputes - one occurred this year - when such flexibility was not shown by the representatives of the Naval Board. In fact they were completely inflexible, as a result of which Conciliation Commissioner Horan criticised the Naval Board very strongly.

It seems to us that this legislation is not particularly necessary at this time. We can see no reason why the ordinary machinery of negotiation should not have been adopted last year when the dispute occurred. We believe that these amendments have been introduced very quickly following a dispute in the dockyard. The representatives of the Naval Board on that occasion said that no action was intended against the unions as a reprisal, and the Minister gave an assurance that despite the bad industrial relations between the workers and management no action would be taken, yet the Government has introduced this fresh piece of legislation. The unions are entitled to ask the reason. Why was there not a conference to straighten out the issues? The unions are entitled to feel suspicious about the reasons associated with the introduction of this legislation.

I mentioned earlier that clause 7 of the Bill, which sought to amend section 45 of the Act and which occasioned a good deal of criticism, has been withdrawn. We have no objection to the extension of that portion of proposed section 42 which relates to the employment of persons in a civil capacity either within or outside Australia, la was argued that that provision was necessary to cover civil workers now engaged in the establishments - and the small number of civil workers, mainly specialists, who have to travel to other places where contract work is done for the naval dockyards. It was claimed that the system being advocated will be of benefit in granting special rates, of pay to cover special conditions. I cannot agree with that argument because if special rates of pay for other officers can be provided by regulation, why cannot the rates of pay for these few specialists in the naval dockyards be provided in the same way?

We do not oppose the Bill at this stage but we make it clear that our lack of opposition is based on the assurances which the Minister in another place has given - they are contained in Hansard - that the Bill will not vary or extend the existing disciplinary powers and that there will not be any attempt to set up separate industrial tribunals and so on. In another place the Minister said:

T wish to make it quite clear that the Naval Board has neither the desire nor the intention to set itself up as an independent wage or condition fixing authority.

There will be a continuation of the present practice of authoritative ‘ sources establishing rates of pay and conditions. The Minister gave us that assurance and said that there will be close co-operation between the Public Service Board and the Department of Labour and National Service. In effect, there will be no departure from the old set-up. Then- he went on to say that there must be an authoritative source for prescribing rates’ of pay. It seems to us thai he is saying that the same sources as have been used in the past will be used in the future. That is the basis of parent awards in outside industry covering mainly the civil workers to whom I have referred. I see no particularly strong and urgent reasons why the situation need be changed. On the other hand it is being received quietly - at least by officials of the union, though not by members of the union.

I said before that there had been circumstances in which people who ought to know - I refer now to Conciliation Commissioner Horan - have made some very strong strictures against :the Naval Board, in connection with one dispute at least. Last year another Commissioner said some other things. I refer to a dispute which occured in February this year in relation to men working in their meal period on Sundays and holidays. These’ circumstances are covered by a particular provision in the determination which states: ‘

When employees work on Sundays and public Holidays, 44 hours shall not be exceeded without a break for meals, unless otherwise mutually arranged.

The men and the union say that on this occasion they presented their argument to the management, asking that arrangements be made for their relief. Their request was refused. On three occasions the management refused to discuss the matter, keeping the employees on this shift without a break and without adequate toilet facilities for over 5 hours. The management refused the men’s submissions. This case - was subject to inquiry by the Commissioner to whom 1 referred. The Naval Board used staff labour to carry out docking procedures until this matter was sorted out. The employees refused to handle the ship and asked for alternative work. This request was refused. The men were stood down, thereby forcing other unionists . at the dockyard off the job. On the following day the employees asked for alternative work until the ship in question was cleaned up and safe working conditions were provided. This request was refused, too.

Everyone can visualise the situation. People who have had something to do with the industry know that private enterprise has set up well-established engineering shops where the work of construction and fabrication is carried on. This work is done in the workshop on a level plane. Think of ship repair and construction work without the provision of adequate access ways and passage ways. Obviously this is a critical position and great attention should be given to safety. However, I am informed that the management has refused to recognise the safety committee which was established many months ago. The committee consisted of two sides, the management and the workers, but as yet the management has failed to give an undertaking that it will allow the safety committee to operate. This is inexcusable in an industry which employs many welders and other workers who use all sorts of mechanical devices. It is a background we do not like. We think it is a bad situation. Let me now refer to the comments of Conciliation Commissioner Horan. This is a public report, having appeared in the ‘Australian’.

Senator Sir Kenneth Morris:

– Did you say that the safety committee is not permitted?

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes. We on this side are always giving safety the biggest possible boost and asking for co-operation from the management. The safety committee was abolished and the union asked for its restoration. This has been refused. There could have been some argument about the personnel on the safety committee, but- surely this situation in which there is no safety committee should not have arisen simply because somebody does not like a committee member on one side or the other. It is essential that such a committee should operate. Safety provisions are essential in industry generally, so obviously they are vital on board a ship. On one occasion a fire broke out in the boiler room of a ship because no cleaning up had been done. That is the case with this union dispute. Let me return to the matters to which I referred earlier. The article in the ‘Australian’ of Wednesday 20th March 1968, under the heading ‘Arbitration orders Navy to pay strikers’, reads:

A Commonwealth arbitration commissioner said yesterday there had been too little liaison between the Navy and civilian workers in a dispute which crippled the Williamstown, Melbourne, dockyard for three weeks. The Commissioner, Mr J. P. Horan, ordered the Navy to pay about $200 which it had withheld from 56 workers and which began the strike, involving 950 men. He said a similar situation in private enterprise would not have been allowed to grow into any significance. . . .

Filing his decision yesterday, Mr Horan said: Mr Mann - for the Navy - has said the Navy has a common law right. I cannot find anywhere at all where it permits the Navy to suspend men provided they can be stood down for the day. This was pointed out to the Navy by my brother commissioner, Commissioner Matthews, in September last. I have not been able to find any legal authority for the department to withhold payment’, he said.

All I can say is that this is the sort of concern we have expressed in both Houses of Parliament. It was dealt with also in another place today. My submissions in this respect will be supported by my Opposition colleagues. It has been put to the Minister and his representatives on the Naval Board that we of the Opposition are not satisfied that these amendments to the Act are needed. However, at this stage our dissatisfaction with the measure is not strong enough for us to oppose it. We have adopted this attitude in view of the Minister’s undertaking that no great changes are proposed in relation to the relationship between the workers, the union and the Naval Board. We want it to be clearly understood that what we are proposing is an urgent examination by somebody in the Government of the changes proposed in this measure.

Senator Mulvihill:

– There should be a change of attitude.

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes. There should be a more effective liaison between the employer and the trades union secretary, whether he be a State secretary or a Federal secretary. The present system is unsatisfactory. There is no doubt that the instances I have mentioned and others which my colleagues will mention will support this contention. Let me repeat what the Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly) said in another place on 30th April, at page 905 of Hansard:

I believe that I, as Minister for the Navy, should say that I do not pretend that the industrial relations within the Navy are all that they should be. 1 have been most concerned about some of the actions that have occurred.

He went on, naturally, to applaud his Department and his officers. I shall quote further so that the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy might have the opportunity to reiterate the undertaking given in the debate in another place. The Minister for the Navy said:

When I introduced this Bill I made it clear that the Bill would not vary or extend existing disciplinary powers under the Act. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Unions were informed by letter to this effect also. However, I have found that, after discussion with my friends of the Opposition, that anxiety on this score still persists. I understand that the anxiety centres around the wording of clause 7 of the Bill which mentioned the discipline of people employed in a civil capacity.

He mentioned that he intended to drop clause 7, which was then omitted from the Bill. After a number of Opposition members had criticised the lack of safeguards and pointed out the need for improvement, the Minister said that, at any rate, there would be a number of safeguards. He said:

Although the determinations of the Naval Board as in the past, will .not be subject to direct parliamentary supervision, there are other safeguards which are considered adequate in the circumstances under which they will be made. These safeguards are:

Firstly, in common with other Commonwealth authorities, the Department of the Navy is required by Government direction to consult with the Public Service Board and the Department of Labour and National Service as co-ordinating authorities, with regard to conditions of service for salaried and wages staff, respectively.

Secondly, under the new section 42a (2.) the Public Service Board exercises a power of direction over the salaries which the Naval Board may determine; there is a similar provision in the existing Act.

Thirdly, a staff association or trade union can apply at present to the Public Service Arbitrator for a new or a varied determination if it is not satisfied with the Naval Board’s determination. This right is protected by the new section 42a (7.). Furthermore a determination of the Naval Board will not bc able to override a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator,’ but will be able to confer an additional benefit.

I make the submission which has not been answered, that if the same sort of methods are employed in the future as have been employed in the past, there will be a continuation of this very bad relationship between employer and employee, and of the number of minor disputes becoming major disputes, with consequent bad feeling between management and the workers. The Minister has mentioned co-ordination between the Department of Labour and National Service and the Public Service Board, but I fear that this will make no impact at all. I cannot see how it will benefit the workers. There must be some sort of enlightened appreciation in this matter.

The first thing to be determined in the proposed new arrangement with the Department of Labour and. National Service is the question of safety. I am quite sure that any consultations held with this Department should include discussions on safety measures which ought to be adopted. All people who are concerned in the industrial movement have been required at some time or other to attend safety conferences. The State Departments of Labour and the Federal Department of Labour and National Service are the organisations that are largely responsible for matters of this sort.

Senator Mulvihill:

– In the age of air conditioned offices one expects a better layout also in workshops. .

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes. Obviously arrangements could be made whereby as an established practice in refits of vessels certain things . would. . be done as prerequisites. Then a refit would not commence until these things had been done and the people who were doing them would not be getting in the way of the people engaged on the refit, with consequential danger to life and limb. The Minister for the Navy in another place has given assurances which have persuaded the Opposition not to oppose the measure. He said that the Bill would not change the Department’s present employment policy and practices, that it would not affect the rights of employees and unions, and would not make any change in existing disciplinary powers.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I commence by drawing attention to the fact that the Bill relates to the employment of civil staff in the Department of the Navy. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar), in his second reading speech, stated:

The present provisions of this section of the Naval Defence Act-

I direct attention to the last three words. provide for the employment of all civil personnel engaged by the Department of the Navy. 1 direct attention to those words. Later the speech indicates that the Bill affects some 7,600 persons. I Have directed attention to these passages so that 1 may relate- what 1 have to say to the Bill. I do not intend to deal with the subject wilh which Senator Bishop dealt. For seme time I have done a soul searching as to when I. should say what I have to say in respect of Australian defence, in which the Navy, plays an important part. I” think .that the Government, the Opposition, our chiefs of staff; senators, members of the House of Representatives, and- the people of this’ country have to do some rethinking about defence as it affects Australia. I hasten to add that what I am going to say is said purely asmy own opinion; I do not speak on behalf of the Government that I support.

Australia has reached a situation in the world today and particularly in Asia in which we must do a , rethinking on defence. It has been proved by Great Britain’s withdrawal from this sphere of influence that we can no longer rely on her if we run into any difficulties in Asia. Let me say with a great deal of reluctance that 1. have come to the conclusion that we can no longer rely on the United States of America if the crunch comes. I have every reason to believe that Americans,- perhaps, would have good reasons for saying: ‘We believe in isolationism,’ as they did in two previous wars until circumstances were such as to cause them to come in. I feel that we cannot rely on Britain and I believe, reluctantly, that we cannot rely on America and I come back to the fact that we can rely only on ourselves. Having said that I come to what I believe is the way in which we can best equip to defend ourselves. I want to talk about the atomic weapon as the world knows it and the more sophisticated thermo-nuclear weapon as perhaps the world does not know it. The atomic weapon as we know it and as the world generally accepts it is what I refer to as the Nagasaki or the Hiroshima bomb. This is old hat today. Any third rate nation in the world has the capacity to produce it and -what is far more dangerous - has the clandestine capacity to distribute it. - Senator Cavanagh - Would the civilians employed by the Naval Board produce it?

Senator BRANSON:

– I am not saying that. I started by saying that these people are. employed under the Naval Defence Act. if we produce the sort of weapon which I shall talk about we may not need these 7,600 persons employed under a Defence Act to carry out what I believe is 1939 defence. I indicated that I was sticking my neck . out and was speaking on behalf of myself and not the Government. The ordinary atomic bomb as we know it is capable of being produced and delivered by third rate nations. Herein lies the danger: There is nothing to stop a nation that disagrees with our way of life from producing an ordinary atomic bomb, delivering it into Sydney Harbour and blowing up the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which would inconvenience us considerably and - what is more important - would kill a lot of people.’ I believe that Australia must have a capacity to produce its own thermo-nuclear weapon - not an atomic bomb. It is a horrifying thought but we happen to live in a world today where we have opponents who are quite prepared not only to produce these weapons but also to use them. I repeat that I do not believe we can rely on Britain or on America. To produce a thermo-nuclear weapon or an H-bomb, as it is more commonly called, we must have; a capacity to produce plutonium, which means that we must have our own atomic reactors . to produce this source of energy. .

When we. ordered the Fill I went on record as- saying - that we were thinking archaically, that it was far better to produce a ring of launching pads around the north of Australia with the capacity to use an intercontinental ballistic missile. These would require very little maintenance - nothing like what would be required for a fleet of Fill aircraft - and not nearly as many men. I come back to Senator Cavanagh’s interjection and my reply that we would not need this large group of civilian, personnel in what I consider to be an outmoded method of defence and offence.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Then we do not need the Bill. We are wasting our time discussing it if we are to have no employees.

Senator BRANSON:

– Of course we need the Bill.

Senator Cohen:

– I rise to order. Mr President. Is the honourable senator in order in discussing these matters, which no doubt are of interest and importance, in the debate on the Bill that is before the Senate? 1 direct your attention to the fact that according to the title it is a Bill to amend the Naval Defence Act 1910-1966 in relation to the employment of persons in a civil capacity. I have been listening but I am unable to see how what the honourable senator is saying is relevant to anything that is contained in the Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must admit, Senator Branson, that 1 am of the opinion that you are straying a little too far away from the Bill.

Senator BRANSON:

– I defer to your ruling, Mr President, but I remind the Senate that I started by saying that the Bill relates to the employment of civil staff in the Department of the Navy under the Naval Defence Act. Surely the Naval Defence Act has something to do with the defence of this country. If it has not then I would like to know what the position is.

Senator McClelland:

– Is the honourable senator suggesting that the Navy and not the Air Force should drop the bombs?

Senator BRANSON:

– No, I have never suggested that. What I am saying is that the personnel now employed in the defence of this country could be reduced below the figure of 7,600 men if the Government followed my suggestion and re-organised the defence of this country.

Senator Bishop:

– The honourable senator is opposing the legislation?

Senator BRANSON:

– No. I believe that the Government could save a lot of the taxpayers’ money that is spent on the employment of civil personnel if it went in for more sophisticated weapons instead of having the outmoded, out-dated offensive and defensive weapons that it is now using. I think that we are still thinking in the 1939 era. That brings me to another point and I hope that Senator Cohen will not take objection to me saying this. I hope Australia does not go ahead and sign the nonproliferation treaty because this would preclude Australia-

Senator Poyser:

– Oh!

Senator BRANSON:

– All right; I am saying this. The honourable senator can argue with me-

Senator Poyser:

– The honourable senator should have made this speech last week.

Senator BRANSON:

– I am making it this week. I can see no reason why the honourable senator should object because it relates to the defence of this country and this Bill is part of the defence of this country.

Senator Poyser:

– It has nothing to do with it.

Senator BRANSON:

– Why does the Bill mention the Naval Defence Act and the Department of the Navy if it has nothing to do with the defence of this country?

Senator Poyser:

– The honourable senator is making a joke of this.

Senator BRANSON:

– I am sorry if the honourable senator considers it to be a joke because I consider it to be serious.

Senator Poyser:

– I mean the Standing Orders.

Senator BRANSON:

– If the honourable senator reads the second reading speech of the Minister he will see that it refers to the Department of the Navy and the Naval Defence Act. If that is not something to do with the defence of this country then T do not know what is.

Senator Cohen:

– I again rise to order. I suggest that the patience of the Senate should not be tested by remarks which have nothing to do with the subject matter of the Bill being debated. Last week the Senate debated a ministerial statement on defence and every honourable senator was free to lake part in that debate. In fact, it is still on the notice paper. I am not attempting to stop Senator Branson giving his views on defence but I do suggest that if it is legitimate for him to discuss whether Australia should be a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty then it is legitimate for other honourable senators to engage in a far-ranging debate on that subject, which in turn involves consideration of the fundamental bases of Australia’s defence and foreign policies because it is common ground that the two are interrelated. That is the reason for my objection.

Senator BRANSON:

– 1 defer to Senator Cohen. I will put it this way. I believe that a lol of people are employed in civilian capacities in all of the Services who could well be doing something more productive in our work force. We should have a more enlightened look at the defence of this country. 1 hope that that remark has not gone beyond what Senator Cohen believes to be the limits of this debate. 1 believe that if we are to achieve our objective in this push button age we should have more push button weapons. Here we are debating legislation in respect of 7,600 people, but under a more sophisticated system of defence and offence this number could be considerably reduced. Whatever the merits of the Bill. I am merely saying that we are legislating on behalf of a group of people that could be substantially reduced if all of us, including members of the Government, did some rethinking in respect to the defence policy of Australia generally.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

Senator Branson said that he was speaking on his own behalf and not on behalf of the Government when he stated that because of Australia’s present international situation we would have to do some rethinking on defence. I will not take up Senator Branson’s point whilst debating this Bill because I think it warrants a great deal of controversial debate at another time. However, having regard to the history of disputes in naval dockyards over a considerable period of time, I do suggest that the Department of the Navy should do some rethinking on its industrial relations with employees. The Minister for Repatria tion (Senator McKellar) said in his second reading speech that the purpose of the Bill was to correct some unsatisfactory features of section 41 of the Naval Defence Act insofar as it relates to the employment of civil staff in the Department of the Navy. The Minister went on to say that approximately 7,600 personnel are at present employed under the Naval Defence Act, consisting of about 3,100 salaried staff and 4,500 wages staff.

The Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly) indicated in another place that he would not seek to extend the disciplinary powers that already existed under the Naval Defence Act. The Opposition is pleased to know that this is the Minister’s attitude. However, it is a fact that an extension of these powers, or what was thought by the Opposition might well be an extension of these powers, was provided for in the original amending Bill that the Government introduced in the House of Representatives towards the end of last year and, I think, on about 13th March of this year. However, I think it is fair to say that as a result of the Industrial Committee of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party discussing the matter in the first instance with a senior officer of the Department of the Navy and then, subsequently, representatives of that Committee discussing the matter with the Minister for the Navy, the Minister decided to drop the clause extending the penal provisions. 1 am pleased to note that at the Committee stage in another place the Minister deleted the then clause 7 of the Bill.

As Senator Bishop stated, the Labor movement does not oppose this Bill, but the fact remains that there is today, to say the very least, great disquiet and indeed suspicion by very responsible trade unionists and workers on the job insofar as certain provisions of this Bill are concerned, and I refer particularly to proposed new section 42a (1.). Indeed, at a meeting held last Thursday night, the Labor Council of New South Wales carried a resolution expressing its concern at some of the proposals in the Bill. Quite frankly,- 1 hope that the Department, bearing in mind the history of industrial disturbances in the dockyards, will become more conciliatory in its industrial attitude and, indeed, will treat workers as men. One can well understand the attitude of workers on the job andthe suspicion and disquiet that is engendered in their minds and in the minds of their trade union leaders when one considers the history of recent disputes andthe timing of legislation of this nature. Firstly, in about October of last year there was a dispute concerning certain issues at Williamstown Naval Dockyard.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. (General Business taking precedence of Government Business.)

page 962

DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I move:

Thatthe Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to abolish capital punishment under thelaws of the Commonwealth. The Opposition seeks to remove the death penalty entirely and without qualification from all Commonwealth acts, regulations, ordinances or other laws.

It is a simple Bill which in effect substitutes the penalty of life imprisonment for the punishment of death wherever death is the existing penalty for a crime. I believe that this Bill deals with a subject matter of the utmost importance to the community.

I shall indicate the crimes against the laws of the Commonwealth which are still punishable by death. It is necessary to do so because of the statement made on 13th March of this year on behalf of the Government by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), in which he reviewed the application of the death penalty in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. On that occasion the Minister announced that, pending a full review of the criminal law in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, eight offences were to be removed from the category of crimes carrying the death penalty. The specific exception was murder. Of course, under other laws of the Commonwealth treason is punishable by death as are pertain offences committed on aircraft.

The eight offences for which the death penalty was changed to one of life imprisonment, under ordinances that came into operation in March, are as follows: Piracy with violence; certain attempts to murder; rape; carnal knowledge of a girl under 10 years of age; breaking and entering a dwelling house and while therein assaulting with intent to murder, or inflicting grievous bodily harm; maliciously setting fire to any dwelling house, vehicle or aircraft knowing any person to be in such dwelling house, vehicle or aircraft; maliciously setting fire to or casting away or by any means destroying any vessel which is afloat, any person being in such vessel; and maliciously masking, altering or removing any light or signal with intent to bring any vessel or boat into danger. The government removed those crimes from the category of crimes involving the death penalty. That action was taken not before time, one might think, in view of the fact that crimes of a similar type have long since ceased to be punishable by death in the States and in civilised countries. The penalty of death remains under Commonwealth law for the crimes of murder, treason and two specific offences under the Crimes (Aircraft) Act passed by this Parliament in 1963.

I am. concerned tonight to spell out and to invite honourable senators to consider the principles upon which a community ought to decide whether it will any longer retain the death penalty as part of its criminal law. If this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, the Commonwealth will have ceased to be capable of committing what I would call official murder of a person convicted of a crime, no matter how serious or abhorrent such a crime may be to the community. The matter turns upon a consideration of a question which has given rise to one of the classical controversies of our time, and indeed, of the past century or two. It opens up the question of whether and when society is justified in taking the life of a person because that person has taken the life of another person, or has been found guilty of some other crime for which it is proper to impose a penalty of maximum severity.

I hope that this debate will be conducted in the spirit that it concerns questions that go beyond party considerations, in a sense, and which are of great interest and importance to the community Very few subjects have aroused such passion and controversy; very few subjects need so much the light of reason to be shone on them so that when the subject is stripped down to its essentials, the proper course for a civilised community to take can be seen. 1 have not the slightest doubt in my mind that when all the arguments are weighed, the arguments in favour of abolition heavily outweigh all those that can be put by people who, for one reason or another, seek to retain upon the statute book the penalty of death.

In passing, it is interesting to observe the information given in answer to a question asked on the subject in this Parliament. In 1963 Sir Garfield Barwick, then AttorneyGeneral, in answering a question put by the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in another place, indicated that no sentence of death had been passed under Federal law between 1950 and 1963. In two cases sentences of death were passed under the law of the Australian Capital Territory, one on a conviction for rape and one on a conviction for murder. Under the law of the Northern Territory sentences of death were passed on three persons, each for a conviction for murder. That was the position as at 1963. I am not aware of any fact which would make that answer inaccurate even today.

In the time at my disposal 1 wish to deal unhysterically and calmly with the arguments that are advanced by people who support the retention of the death penalty, and then to deal with positive arguments in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. It seems to me that there are five major contentions - perhaps six - put forward in favour of retaining the death penalty. These arguments were set out compendiously in an arresting analysis in the Sydney ‘Law Review’ of March 1958 by His Honour, Mr Justice Barry, a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. 1 would like for the purpose of this discussion to adopt the form used by Mr Justice Barry. The first argument is that death as a punishment for murder and treason is unique in its deterrent effect. The second argument was that the abolition of the death penalty would result in an increase in murders and particularly in attacks on police officers and warders. The third argument was that death is the appropriate penalty for a human being who has unjustifiably taken l’ife. The fourth was that there is no satisfactory alternative penalty for murder. There are those who would keep the death penalty because they cannot think of any better or more appropriate form of penalty. The fifth argument - and this has become a matter of major contention during the 10 years since these categories were enumerated by Sir John Barry - is that public opinion requires its retention. But again if public opinion polls are any guide I pause to show that there has been a very significant shift in the last 15 years in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. I propose to give the Senate some figures which would establish that proposition. The sixth argument is that the proposition is a good one but the present time is not opportune for the abolition of the penalty. In other words, there is the argument of inertia or the argument of convenience in the present situation.

I would like to deal1 with those various contentions because T believe that when they are properly examined not one of them will hold water. Not one of them is a proposition that can be sustained in the light of argument and in the light of practical experience. I suppose if there were any conceivable basis upon which the death penalty might be justified in the second half of the twentieth century it would be that there was an overwhelming case that it represented a deterrent to the commission of further offences. I do not think everyone would be happy even if that . argument could be sustained, but certainly any other justification for the existence of the death penalty, and for carrying it out, has long since been discredited by sociologists, criminologists and those practical reformers who have had some experience in studying the effects of punishment on the commission of crime by others. I do not believe that death as a punishment for murder is effective as a deterrent. 1 would like at this point to quote from the article by Sir John Barry which I have mentioned because it seems to sum up the position very well. Sir John Barry puts it this way:

The argument that th? penalty of death is unique in its deterrent effect rests really upon personal intuition; upon the feeling that each one of us has that awareness that his life will be forf’it if he. does a forbidden act will prevent him from doing that act. Implicit in that awareness is. of course, the assumption that ‘discovery and conviction are certain, or, at least highly likely. Where that assumption is not made or is rejected, plainly the awareness does not operate effectively or universally as a restraining influence/for it is notorious that many planned murders have been committed by persons who felt sure their guilt would not be discovered. The argument involves, too, that no lesser form of punishment will be as effective, but if the argument is to be regarded as coercive, it is applicable to every crime, and thus the whittling down of the list of capital offences during the 19th century in England from over two hundred to four was done in disregard of it. Experience has demonstrated its falsity in connection with the crimes that were made non-capital, for the adverse consequences predicted did not occur. Moreover, if deterrence is the object, the logic of deterrence requires that the penalty be attended by more than simple death, lt should be preceded by torture and death should be inflicted in the most agonising forms. Furthermore, executions should be publicly carried out, and unless the health laws are regarded as of greater importance than, punitive deterrence, felons’ bodies should be exhibited to public view. In brief, rigorous application of the theory requires that the criminal’s social usefulness’ as a deterrent example should’ be exploited to the full, not only before and at death, but afterwards as well.

That is very strong language, but it is meant to illustrate the point that if you are going to deal with this as a question of principle you have to follow the logic of the principle right through.

It is perfectly true, as the learned writer says, that, in a country which we regard as a cornerstone of civilised existence, the United Kingdom, with its traditions and its laws and its legacy of freedom which it is handing down to other- people these days it is not so very long ago since there were over 200 crimes on the statute book which carried the death penalty. At the turn of the 19th centuary, the criminal code of Great Britain was known as the ‘bloody code’. It was unique in the world. The crimes for which the death penalty could be inflicted included stealing turnips, associating with gypsies, damaging a fishpond, writing threatening letters, impersonating outpensioners at Greenwich Hospital, being found armed or disguised in a forest, park or rabbit warren, cutting down a tree, poaching, forging, pickpocketing, shoplifting and so on.

But the number of these crimes has been gradually cut down and people accept these days that a crime for which the death penalty is exacted should be one of the utmost gravity. Community standards change on these things. Community standards are changing today. Gallup polls indicate that whereas a few years ago there was a substantial majority in favour of the retention of the death penalty, today one cannot find such a majority. Today there is a significant shift in public opinion based upon one or two cases which have achieved notoriety and based upon an increasing recognition by thinking men in the community that this is a law which should be altered. Modern learning, the development of the science of criminology and the various researches and endeavours of practical social’ reformers have led us into a new era where we can look for new ways of dealing with criminals. But I am straying a little from the argument as to deterrents.

If you are going to assume that the death sentence deters people from committing murder it must be assumed that it deters people from attempting to commit murder. This Government - I am not saying this in a partisan fashion - recently stated that as far as the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are concerned the threat of life imprisonment is a suitable deterrent to those who may commit the crime of attempted murder. Here we are caught with the logic of the proposition that I am putting forward. If you are going to say that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder, how on earth can you distinguish that from the problem of a deterrent to attempted murder? Obviously if there is a guilty intent to commit murder and it fail’s, that is not the fault of the person who fails. It is the luck of the person who fails.

Senator Greenwood:

– Do you not think there is some difference? The victim is not dead.

Senator COHEN:

– I know the victim is not dead, but if you want to have a deterrent you must deter people from attempting to commit murder, not only from committing it. I think the logic of that proposition is inescapable.

Senator Mattner:

– But the sentence would probably stop it.

Senator COHEN:

– The sentence, I propose to show, does not stop it. In the countries and States in which capital punishment has been abolished there is no reliable or credible evidence to show that the rate of murder has increased. In fact some remarkable statistics have been produced to show that the ratio of convictions for murder to convictions for manslaughter is higher in New South Wales and Queensland, where there is no death penalty, than in the States that have not abolished capital punishment. The reason for that is perfectly simple. It is that there is running through the community a dislike of the death penalty and in the latter States members of juries who try these cases face up to their duty by allowing a little mercy or a little tenderness to creep into their approach. In a case in which there should be a conviction for murder, jurymen will not take the step of convicting because they fear that the sentence will be carried out; therefore, they record a compromise verdict of manslaughter.

Senator Mattner:

– Would the honourable senator mind elaborating on his attempted murder point? He has built up his case on attempted murder.

Senator COHEN:

– No, 1 have not done that entirely. I have said that if we want to be logical and to make the death sentence a deterrent or to say that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder we should not be abolishing it in cases of attempted murder. Senator Mattner is seeking to interject again, but I do not think what he is saying has much to do with the proposition that 1 am discussing at the moment. The facts on this matter have been published. Mr Stanley Johnston, the Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Melbourne, set out the actual figures in 1962 in a paper entitled ‘Criminal Homicide Rates in Australia’. He dealt with the position in Victoria, firstly, during a period when there was no capital punishment because a Labor government was in office. I am not trying to make political capital out of this. I am merely mentioning that Labor governments do not carry out death sentences and that there is no such attitude a priori on the part of conservative or non-Labor governments.

From 1 7th December 1952 to 7th June 1955 - a period of 31 months during which a Labor government was in office in Victoria - 28.6% of people who were charged with murder were convicted of murder; 25% of them were convicted of manslaughter; and 46.4% of them were acquitted. From June 1955 to December 1958 - a period of 42 months when the Labor government had gone from office and a conservative government was in office, and when juries were conscious of the fact that it was always open to a conservative government to decide to carry out a death penalty - of 55 people charged with murder, 10 were convicted of murder, 24 were convicted of manslaughter and 21 were acquitted. So, 2i times as many people were convicted of manslaughter as were convicted of murder during that period, whereas during the period when the Labor government was in office the number of convictions for murder exceeded the number of convictions for manslaughter.

Senator Wright:

– To which State is the honourable senator referring?

Senator COHEN:

– Victoria. Of course, those figures are taken over a period and do not prove everything conclusively and for all time. But they are sufficiently arresting to debunk the argument that when one abolishes the death penalty one loses the’ capacity to deter. In fact, with the death penalty absent, juries face up to their responsibility seriously and in a proper case members of a jury are not afraid to convict of murder because they know that the man will not hang. In other cases the tendency seems to be for members of juries to look for a compromise because the death penalty affronts the community conscience. So far thirty-seven countries have abolished capital punishment without a subsequent increase in the rate of murder or attempted murder, as far as we have been able to ascertain. I think that is the major argument. The death penalty is said to be a deterrent. For the life of me, I cannot see that anybody has ever produced a case to show that the retention of capital punishment or the death penalty makes any serious contribution to a reduction of crime.

In 1949 the members of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in Great Britain reported in these terms:

All we can say is that the deterrent value of punishment in general is probably liable to be exaggerated, and the effects of capital punishment especially so because of its drastic and sensational character.

Many eminent witnesses gave evidence before that Royal Commission to the effect that capital punishment could not be said to be exercising any significant deterrent effect to crime. The reason for that is that one is dealing with murder and the average murder is committed by a person who is not a hardened criminal. He is much more likely to be a person who kills in passion, in pique or as a result of a personal situation that blows up so that something explodes and the crime is committed. Such a person is unlikely to commit murder again.

I am dealing now with the person who comes before the court because of something that he did in a family situation or in a quarrel over something that is intimate and personal to the members of the family or because of something that arose, as a reaction to some kind of provocation in the personal sense.

Such people are not criminal types. The fact that they dct in passion or in temper in some kind of emotional context rather indicates that they aTe not the sort of person who would pause with a knife or a mallet in bis band and say: ‘I had better stop because I could be hanged if I am convicted of this crime’. Their minds just do not advert to the question of the kind of punishment that they will be given, one way or the other. The difference’ between life imprisonment and death would not make that much difference to them. On the other hand, the hardened criminal takes his risks. He decides whether he can gol away with it. For him the important thing is not what the punishment is but whether he is likely to be’ delected. That is the real issue that the death penalty ignores.

It is said that, the abolition of Iiic death penalty would perhaps increase attacks on police officers. That argument was. put in Great Britain. For a number of years there was a limited category of crimes for which the penalty was death, and those crimes included the murder of a policeman. Since 1 965 the death .penalty for such crimes has been abolished. That law will operate until 31st July 1970 and. will need to be renewed if it is to continue, because it. is essentially a trial. To, the best of my knowledge, so far nothing. has emerged which would make it look as though the British will want to do anything other than continue this experiment for a further’ period.

I do not believe that any of the other arguments hold a great, deal of terror for anybody who seeks, as we seek with this Bill, to abolish the death penalty. Surely we do not still adopt the argument that death is the appropriate penalty for a person- who kills - the eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth argument. Surely we are not reduced to the. proposition of the old- lex talionis - a life for a life, an eye- for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot- for. a. .foot, burning for burning, wound for wound and stripe for. stripe.

Surely we are not still back in those dark ages. 1 ask honourable senators to remember that even in those days the lex talionis was designed to stop people from exacting more than appropriate retribution; in other words, not to take two eyes for one eye but only an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and so on. But that is all history now. Surely in 1968 the Senate is not going to adopt the attitude that that should be the prevailing sentiment in our community, any more than Australians today would be prepared to adopt such an attitude.

May I come briefly to some of the arguments which are of a more positive kind. I have tried to deal with the significant arguments in favour of the retention of the death penalty. Does public opinion require it? 1 do not believe so. I believe that gallup polls show that in these days public opinion is fairly evenly divided, with a preponderance in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. There has been a very significant shift ‘ statistically over the last 15 years in favour of abolishing the death penalty and if I had the figures handy I certainly would cite t hon to the Senate. I have seen thom within the last few hours.

Dealing with the positive arguments in favour of abolishing the death penally, firstly there is the extremely important point that the wrong man may be- hanged.’ This is not an academic question; it ‘ has happened, lt has happened in cases which have attracted the attention of the news hungry world. It has happened in cases where lawyers and social reformers have striven’ to gel at “the facts. In the end they have found that somebody has been wrongly hanged. That was so in Great Britain nol so many years ago in the famous case of Timothy John Evans who had been executed in 1950 for the murder of his child. When capital punishment was abolished in Britain in 1965 the Home Secretary, Mr Jenkins, announced a posthumous free pardon for that man. Honourable senators will recall the case, lt was the famous one involving the -man Christie who was convicted subsequently of murdering others in the .same house and willi a similar pattern of behaviour. A. man who has been hanged for murder, or for. any crime and who is subsequently shown lo be innocent can ncver.be- compensated, for the. wrong that society has clone to him. He is dead. There are cases ether than the Evans case. There have been cases even in this country. There was the case of the man McDermott who was released in 1952 after serving years in gaol for conviction of a murder back in 1936. He was apprehended many years later, convicted of murder and subsequently released on the recommendation of a judge sitting as a commission of inquiry. These were cases where the legal authorities were wrong in convicting men concerned. Where a death sentence is imposed and the penalty is carried out there is no way of righting the wrong.

I believe that the history of capital punishment and crime shows that capita] punishment has no special value in making the community safer or in lessening the crime rate. I believe, further, that capital punishment enshrines the idea that violence is desirable and inevitable, and to the extent that it does accept that idea it is in conflict with ethical, religious and cultural concepts in our society. It is, I believe, a denial of humanity. A philosphy which includes the deliberate taking of life cannot be justified. Finally, it is a denial of the accepted social doctrine of rehabilitation. Whilst there is still a great deal to be done in catering adequately by way of prison reform for those who offend against our laws, we do have probation and parole systems. We have made significant advances in the rehabilitation of individual prisoners. We should not assume that a man who commits a murder is so incapable of becoming a proper, good living and responsible member of society that no attempt should be made to rehabilitate him and that the only way to deal with that crime is to strangle the life out of him, to hang him by the neck until he is dead. 1 believe that these are formidable questions for the Senate to consider and that they are formidable questions for our country.

I think it is fair to say that some of the noblest spirits in the history of man, some of the most earnest and sincere practical social reformers, have striven over the years for the abolition of this relic of barbarism, the death penalty. Some of what has been said on this great issue in many places has something of the ring of immortality about it. I have had the privilege of reading a book published in the very recent past, called ‘The Penalty is Death’, edited by Mr Barry Jones. The book contains a collection of speeches and contributions to this subject on both sides. It brings together in one readable volume not only a useful reference work for discussion of the subject but a whole outlook of humanity and compassion which commands attention. It deals with the contributions of the great social reformers, like the famous Marquis Beccaria in the 18th century in Italy who said this of the death penalty:

The punishment of death is pernicious to society, from the example of barbarity it affords. If the passions (or the necessity of war) have taught men to shed the blood of their fellow creatures, the laws, which are intended to moderate the ferocity of mankind, should not increase it by examples of barbarity, made more horrible by the formal pageantry of execution.

Sir Samuel Romilly, who was a great social reformer in the 19th century, fought very hard in the House of Commons to amend some of the more barbarous expressions of the law relating to capital punishment. He was opposed on many occasions. He was often opposed by the determined Conservative opposition. In the book edited by Mr Barry Jones this statement appears:

In 1810 a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons to provide that the punishment for high treason should be cither hanging or beheading instead of the then punishment which was ‘that the offender be dragged to the gallows: that he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive - - and so on, with a description which .s barely quotable, even in this place. That Bill was opposed and defeated. Sir Samuel Romilly said:

From the spirit which 1 have seen-

This was the determined opposition by some of the Conservative Lords -

I shall not be surprised, and 1 certainly will not be deterred, by any vote of this night I am not so unacquainted with the nature of prejudice as not to have observed that it strikes deep root; that it flourishes in all soils and spreads its branches in every direction. I have observed also, that flourish as it may, it must, by laws sacred and immutable, wither and decay after the powerful and repeated touch of truth. It was my lot to hear in parliament a negative upon that Bill which was intended to deliver this enlightened nation from the reproach of the cruel and disgusting punishment of burning women alive. It was my lol again and again to witness in this house the defeat of those wise and humane exertions which were intended to rescue Englishmen from the disgrace of abetting slavery. But the punishment of burning is no more, and Africa is free.- No resistance, no vote of this night shall prevent my again appealing to the good sense and good feeling of the legislature and of the country. If I live another year, 1 will renew this Bill, with the Bill for repealing the punishment of death for stealing a few shillings; and, whatever may be my fate, the seed which is scattered has not fallen upon stony ground. 1 believe that that sentiment is to be found again and again in the reports of distinguished humanitarians who have taken up the case for the abolition of capital punishment not only in Anglo-Saxon countries but in countries in Europe, Asia, and the New World. Mr Jones’ book lists 37 countries which have abolished the death penalty, some of them .doing s.o about the middle of the 19th century. Holland abolished capital punishment in 1870. Finland has had no executions since 1826. Belgium has had no executions since 1863. Brazil abolished the death penalty in 1891. New Zealand abolished the death penalty in. 1961. Panama abolished it in 1903. I could go on reciting the .names of countries that have abolished it. When: we compare ourselves with such countries, we can not be proud of the fact that in 1968 we still have in our statutes and occasionally carry out, though not in the Commonwealth in recent years at any rate, the death penalty.

I believe that this. Bill gives honourable senators an opportunity to vote as they see fit. 1 trust that the Bill will .be supported, because if it becomes law it will represent an extremely important advance in Australian history.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I listened with interest to the speech made by Senator Cohen in favour of the second reading of the Death Penalty Abolition Bill. One recognises the warmth and humanitarian purposes with which the honourable senator expressed his view. But I suggest that it is a mistake to envisage ourselves tonight as being engaged simply in an academic discussion of the death penalty in general. The honourable senator has advanced the proposition that this House of the legislature should pass, as part of the Commonwealth law, a provision which states:

A person shall not be liable to the punishment of death for any offence.

I always thought that it was a sound precept, in governing one’s experiences in the Parliament, to consider the authority that properly belongs to the Senate. In the first place the Senate is the House of review. We have other special functions, but we are not the House of government. The House which is responsible for government is the House of Representatives. The death penalty is a vital factor and is one of the strange facets of the administration of law and order. Fundamentally that is one of the inalienable functions of government. Therefore it is quite inappropriate that a. Bill, having such a fundamental bearing upon one of the important penalties for law breaking, should emanate from a private member in the Upper House. In saying that I do not suggest that it is not- of advantage to discuss the Bill, but 1 say that from the point of view of exercising legislative authority in this chamber. I suggest that it would be wholly inappropriate for us to usurp the fundamental function of government in a most deep seated and important element of criminal law enforcement. Whatever one may say as to the function of government in a British speaking community, the one function for which all people hold the Government of the day responsible is the maintenance of law and order. Therefore a matter such as this should be expressed as a matter of Government policy and not as the’ viewpoint of a private member in one chamber.

The second thing that I would like to say with regard to Senator Cohen’s general approach to this matter is that the whole of his argument stemmed from the assumption, which he made but did not dispel, that a conviction for murder, for example, carried’ as the ordinary consequence the penalty of death. That assumption was left for us all to imbibe. The honourable senator would have put the case much more starkly before the Senate if he had said that in some cases the law provides for a penalty of death but only in a very small percentage of cases is that penalty carried out. If one were to convey to a House of legislature the dreadful nature of the penalty by stating that it is applied in a majority of cases of conviction, then perhaps we should consider whether the abolition of this penalty as a matter of law was overdue. But that is not the position. Nor did the honourable senator take care to inform the Senate of the true ambit of his proposal - that is, whether it applies to the Commonwealth of Australia, the six States, the two mainland Territories or the other Territories over which we have jurisdiction. And he did not tell us in which kind of cases, under Commonwealth law, provision is made for the death penalty in the event of conviction.

In the case of murder it is not Commonwealth legislation that provides for the death penalty in the generality of cases in this Commonwealth. In fact, in the case of punishment for murder the Commonwealth’s responsibility extends only to the law of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. In other areas in this Commonwealth where murder is committed we have no authority or responsibility to consider what the appropriate penalty is.

Wilh regard to Commonwealth legislation, that is to ‘say statutes that have passed through the Commonwealth Parliament, there are cases in which, by deliberate provision of this Parliament, the death penalty has been declared to be the appropriate penalty for the crime. The first is the Crimes (Aircraft) Act, a statute of 1963. After some debate and as a matter of deliberate declaration, the Parliament provided for the death penalty in the case of a crime concerning aircraft.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where murder need nol have occurred.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, where murder need not have occurred. ‘ The provisions in the Act relate to destroying an aircraft with intent to cause death or prejudicing the safe operation of an aircraft with intent to cause death. Those provisions were inserted, not as a matter of inadvertence but as a matter of deliberate policy. The then Attorney-General stated clearly that, having regard to the importance of the crime involved and the number of persons who may be the victims of such a crime, it was considered that the appropriate penally was death.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Did the Minister oppose the inclusion of the death penalty on that occasion?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Forgive me if my memory does not extend to that with accuracy, but my belief is that I did not.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Well, I have doubts.

Senator WRIGHT:

– The honourable senator credits me with a spirit of humanitarianism that we will examine according to l he 1 record. The other case in which the Commonwealth Parliament by statute has provided for the imposition of the death penalty is in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 wherein the penalty is provided for the wilful killing of a person protected by one of the Geneva Conventions. Article 50 is the relevant provision. Let mc be quite frank. As I understand it, the judgment as to the appropriateness of the death penalty for that crime was made by this Parliament and was not imposed as a penalty by virtue of any provision in the Conventions.

Senator Cohen:

– We could alter it. lt is not something that could not be altered.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That is my view, yes. Then it is interesting to notice that under our Defence Act a court martial may impose the death penalty only in respect of mutiny, desertion to the enemy and traitorous conduct with the enemy. No consideration has been given by Senator Cohen in his submissions to the seriousness of those crimes, not in relation to an individual life but in relation to the safety of the national life itself.

Senator Cohen:

– I did say without qualification. I wanted it to be understood that my Bill was meant to cover the cases with which the Minister now intends to deal.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am pleased the honourable senator has made that concession. I have been dealing with his arguments upon the basis of the generality of his submission that a person shall not be liable to the punishment of death for any offence. He made a wide unqualified sweep despite all ;he occasions on which this matter has been considered. What I am complaining about is that the honourable senator did not treat us to any reasoned submission - reason must be the talisman of his argument - as to why we should repeal the death penalty in the case of mutiny, desertion to the enemy or traitorous conduct with the enemy which may involve a great section of our armed forces and the safety of a great number of our civilians.

It is appropriate that next I should observe that the death penalty is prescribed under the Crimes Act as the penalty for treason. When one considers the countries where the death penalty is retained, it is interesting to notice that it is retained in the United Kingdom for treason, it is retained in New Zealand for treason and it is retained in Canada for treason, so if one is to have regard to the countries where the death penalty has been abolished for murder, one should remind oneself that the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada have retained it as the appropriate penalty for treason.

As I said at the outset, it is a fact that the death penalty is provided for murder in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. That comes from the fact that the ordinances which applied previously existing State law applied law which then provided for the death penalty in relation to murder. It has not been repealed in those two Territories. That is the position relating to the cases in which the death penalty is provided for under federal law. Those are the cases in which the penalty would be altered if Senator Cohen’s proposal for an amendment of the law were accepted. I should have thought that legal experience and an insight into constitutional responsibility would have dictated caution in moving into this field from the federal angle because it is fundamental to an understanding of the Australian Constitution that the general body of criminal law is still the main responsibility of the States.

It is still the position that the State legislatures and the common law they inherited provide for these incidents and acts which are offences punishable as crimes. Therefore it is the State law which chiefly and fundamentally lays down the genera] spirit and the fundamental theory of criminal law in Australia, so far as it should be applied in the practical administration of law. Queensland abolished the death penalty for murder in, I think, 1921. At any rate, it was a long time ago. New South Wales has abolished the death penalty for murder but retains it for piracy and treason. Victoria retains it for murder and treason, as do Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. So that there are four States which retain the death penalty for murder, and five which retain it for treason. I say with very great respect that it would be an act of impertinence for me to give my legislative authority to a general proposition in the Federal Senate, purporting to apply without qualification, without limit as to area and without limited application in respect of any crime, that a person shall not be liable to punishment of death for any offence. I do not think that is the function of the whole of this Federal Parliament. To the States belongs the fundamental right to lay down the essential principles of criminal law administration and to carry them out and so preserve a proper state of law and order.

Senator Cohen:

– You do not think we should give any sort of lead from the Commonwealth.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the case is spoilt at the outset by the generality of the Bill which, with all respect to its proponent, betokens an irresponsibility in the consideration of it. It is put forward as a generality to apply to cases which we have no authority to consider. If it had been put forward as a Bill with special application to a limited number of cases, while admitting that to the States belongs the fundamental province of deciding this principle, I would listen to the argument with much greater respect. That is the point I make. We in the Federal Parliament shall make a sweeping declaration quite beyond our authority if we accept this Bill, which is quite inappropriate. It is not only inappropriate when considered in relation to the proper jurisdiction of the States; it is completely inappropriate when considered in relation to the Territories. I have had to protest in this Senate previously against a move by the Opposition to intrude upon legislative matters in Territories where we have established representative legislatures. Abolition of the death penalty was specifically debated last year in the Northern Territory Legislative Council, which, by a majority of its elected members, rejected it. Tt is not proper that, having established a representative legislature there, even of a limited kind, we should subvert its proper function by putting through legislation which would hereafter prevent it from enacting legislation for this penalty in cases in which its members thought it to be appropriate.

Whatever may be said of the argument as it applies to the Northern Territory, I am credibly informed that in Papua and New Guinea a great majority of people favour retention of the death penalty. This very week we are evolving a process to’ encourage the understanding that the people of Papua and New Guinea should take responsibility and mould their legislation according to the opinion of the House pf Assembly in Port Moresby, where 84 of the 94 members are now elected by the people, lt would be one of the most unfortunate trespasses upon the province of a newly emerging representative legislature if we in this Parliament - and if: what 1 say is true, contrary to the majority opinion of their people - were to abolish the death penalty. 1 think the establishment of such a principle in a Federal statute would preclude that Territory’s House of Assembly from legislating to a contrary effect.

Finally, if this is not enough to induce the Senate to proceed cautiously, I implore honourable senators to have a keen regard for our sense of responsibility. 1 venture to suggest that unless the generality of clause 3 is broken down to apply only to legislation that is within the ambit of this Parliament’s authority, the Bill before us is not a valid exercise of the power of this Parliament. To claim authority generally to abolish the death penalty is beyond the power of the Commonwealth. At any rate, that is not only my individual, opinion. There is a body of responsible opinion thai this is the correct view, and the one thai a court would lake. When considering these mailers I suggest that honourable senators remind themselves that it is nol our function to enforce law and order. That is an inalienable State Government function. Honourable senators must remind themselves that. Commonwealth and Territory legislation provide for the death penalty in ‘only a very few cases, and that in the general administration of the lawfour of the six Slates provide the death penalty for murder, and five for treason. They must remind themselves how wrong it would be for us iti this Senate. to intrude upon the functions’ pf the legislatures of the Northern Territory and Papua and New Guinea, and they must then consider the invalidity .of this proposal on constitutional grounds. 1 suggest the conviction is inescapable that the only responsible decision that the Senate can make is to urge caution, asking Senator Cohen to reconsider the Dill and not to, persevere with it as a legislative provision emanating from this Chamber. , . 1 want to add only one or two comments on the argument k that fell from Senator Cohen. He said that he could nol see for the life of him that -anyone had produced a case to show that a murderer, had been deterred by the existence of the death penalty. The expression that my learned friend used - that he could not see for the life of him - staked his insight at a pretty high pitch. 1 wonder just what deterrent the death penalty might have upon a person who administers poison in insignificant amounts over 14 days or 3 months, or upon somebody who plans a murder well ahead or upon those who perpetrate other deliberate, malicious murders. 1 cannot entertain for the life of me the idea that such people would not seriously calculate the consequences before they went to the : full extent of their purpose. l am intensely intrigued by the proposition that if it is proper to impose the death penally for murder it ought to be imposed for attempted murder. I do not wish to take any advantage from my slight acquaintance with legal experience to undercut .the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tonight and deprive him of all the value that comes from his eminent legal experience but I do want to put one unqualified proposition to the Senate. 1 challenge him to produce in. any criminal code or in any criminal statute operative. in Australia a provision that death is the proper penalty for attempted murder simpliciter. If that is so nobody, before Senator Cohen spoke tonight, thought that although the death penalty was proper for murder it was appropriate for attempted murder. Considering the degree to which Senator Cohen pitched his argument upon the proposition that if it is appropriate, for murder it should apply to attempted murder he left a very great weakness in his argument, because if 1 am right in suggesting that no authority - in the country has yet imposed the penalty of death for attempted murder, the honourable senator’s argument would either claim for him a special stream of ingenuity or reflect a great degree of crassness upon those legislatures which forgot to apply that penally.

Senator Cohen:

– The Government has just abolished certain attempts to murder as offences punishable by death in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I know, but we are not dealing with this on the basis that those laws still prevail.

Senator Cohen:

– There was -a death penalty and you just abolished it.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes. There are some other offences too, that would be interesting to consider in respect of which the death penalty is to be abolished. Surely we have not to argue that. The honourable senator agrees with that course. Therefore, let us keep to the bone about which the contention is and bite at that. One further point intrigues me. This is the use that my learned friend the honourable senator leading for the Opposition makes of statistics. He finds that a Labour Government was in office in a certain State - .1 suppose this would apply in any State - when juries convicted a great percentage of persons accused of murder. Then in the following period when a Conservative government was in office, we are asked to believe, juries did not decide individual cases according to a universal standard of judgment, based on the evidence presented. Anybody who has had the experience of pleading before such a body of men on capital cases - and V have had a few - will know the intense attention and earnest consideration that the mere charge of murder implants in the minds of everybody in court, especially of the jury. I am not going to be persuaded in the slightest degree by an insignificant bracket of statistics as to one State and experience under one political outlook as against experience in the next, triennium under another political outlook. I do not think that that has any significance. Rather do 1. take the position to be that every juror with an inalienable instinct to mercy will screw his mind to say: ‘We will not convict unless the evidence in this case excludes the possibility of any reasonable doubt.’ If one takes 10% of fiftyfive cases and considers the matter on thai basis, what validity would any man of reason ascribe to an argument as to whether or not death was the appropriate penalty with which to follow those earnest verdicts? I hope that the Senate will reject the Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The best that we can say for the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) since his elevation to the position he now holds is that we are disappointed in him when we compare him with the great champion of progressive measures that he was as a member of the Government back bench. His performance tonight was not impressive because it seemed contrary to his previous arguments as to whether the Senate had a right to consider and pass certain legislation. If we have a constitutional right to introduce and pass legislation - which would be in line with Senator Wright’s previous arguments - we should exercise that right, lt is proper for the Senate, which represents the States, to take this course if we think that the time has come for a review of the imposition of the death penalty for particular crimes. Although the Senate is mainly concerned with reviewing legislation that is initiated in another place, it is not prevented from initiating such legislation us it considers necessary.

This Bill seeks from the Senate an expression of opinion different from that represented in the Acts that Senator Wright has enumerated and in which the death penalty is prescribed. The Opposition feels that we have reached a stage in our thinking where we should re-examine our legislation in order to determine whether a different attitude should be taken to this penalty. The Opposition recognises the need to uphold law and order in Australia. This Bill does not in any way seek to take away from the Government its responsibility to maintain law and order. However, the Opposition believes that the maintenance of law and order does not require the extreme measures that- are laid down by certain Acts. Senator Cohen has produced statistics which show that the death penalty is not a deterrent to the offences for which the death penalty may be imposed. Senator Wright has indicated that he is not concerned with insignificant statistics. But should the death penalty continue when there is no proof that it is a deterrent to a particular crime? This Bill is not, as Senator Wright has stated, restricted only to the crime of murder; it applies to all crimes for which the death penalty is prescribed. These include desertion to an enemy, mutiny, traitorous conduct with an enemy and treason - all serious crimes.

There are some brutal and heinous murders for which a lesser penalty than death may seem hard to justify, but. a penalty must have three purposes. It must be a punishment for the offender; it must satisfy social conscience that justice has been done and it must act as a deterrent to potential criminals. Although Senator Cohen referred largely to the crime of murder the Bill applies, as I have said, to every crime for which an Act of this

Parliament prescribes the death penalty. Is the death penalty fulfilling the three aims I have mentioned? Can we be certain that there will be no increase in crime if the death penalty is abolished and replaced by, say, life imprisonment? I think that Senator Cohen has put up a good case. It has been the belief of the Australian Labor Party for a long time that the death penalty serves no purpose today. In fact, we are of the opinion that it may have the opposite effect to that sought to. be achieved. This Bill would be applicable to the Australian Territories until such time as they had selfgovernment and were able to make whatever alterations to their criminal code they considered necessary.

There is a widespread movement today gainst the retention of the death penalty, not only for murder but for other crimes. Our whole attitude to crime is changing. Hanging or other means of execution may have been considered essential in the days before prison reform but they are not considered essential now. In Britain, executions originated not so much as a penalty as for propaganda reasons. The death penalty was used as much to protect property as to protect life. People were hanged publicly as an example to all, and it was only after a select committee inquiry in 1856 that public hangings were abolished. The select committee also directed its attention to the method of hanging. Up to that time hanging had been carried out virtually by strangulation. lt was thought that the distortion of the face and the writhing of the body for 20 minutes during the agony of death was a deterrent to any would-be criminal who witnessed the execution. As a result of public revulsion against such happenings in public squares the system of hanging was developed whereby the vertebrae of the neck were broken and there was no convulsion of the body or appearance of pain on the victim’s face. After 1856 hangings were performed inside prisons and after an execution a black flag was flown to notify the public of its occurrence. Later this system of notification was abolished and another system was introduced whereby a notice was put on the gate of the prison when a hanging had taken place. I think this system is still followed.

Whereas in the early days public hanging was thought to be a deterrent to those who might consider breaking the law, it has apparently lost its deterrent value because execution is now carried out within a prison before a few witnesses. Yet there are still those who regard hanging as a deterrent. Before I leave that aspect I want to remind Senator Wright of a statement that he made on 10th October 1963 during a debate on the Crimes (Aircraft) Bill. The Labor Party opposed the inclusion of the death penalty in that Bill and Senator Wright voted with the Labor Party. T cannot remember the actual vote on that occasion, but Senator Wright’s words remain in the memory of a lot of us. They were well chosen words and, as I remember them, were such that he would have been very inconsistent if he had not voted with the Labor Party. In justice to him I think I should say that on that occasion he also stated:

I confess that it comes as a new idea to me that the death penalty should be applied in the case of attempted murder. That is not so in my State and has not been so since 1920, when we codified the law. The death penalty was preserved and is still provided for under the law.

Senator Wright:

– That was not for attempted murder.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Crimes (Aircraft) Bill prescribed the death penalty for the destruction of an aircraft without consideration of the safety of anyone who might be within or near the aircraft. It was not the intention at any time to relate the legislation only to murder.

Hansard truly records that on that occasion we had a friend in Senator Wright, although he is not in the same position today, for reasons that I consider have not been convincingly put before the Senate. Public opinion polls have shown that in the main the people who have studied the question of the death penalty are opposed to its application. A section of public opinion still favours the retention of the death penalty, but I believe that most people have not seriously considered the question. Polls are generally conducted on this subject not long after the commission of a callous murder. On those occasions an overwhelming majority may support the retention of the death penalty.

I have had reason to take an interest in this subject. Two young mcn I had known as children and had mixed with in my youth in South Australia were hanged by the State for committing murder. One lad came from one of the best families in the district in which I lived. It was a God fearing, church going family. The lad made an unfortunate marriage that broke up. There was the pressure of worry from hire purchase debts. Under the laws of that period, although the goods on hire purchase were repossessed he was still required to pay the debt he had contracted. He suffered a mental collapse. One day he went into the office of a money lender to whom he owed money and asked to see the manager. When the manager came out of his office, the lad drew a gun and shot him dead. The other members of that family made good in society. The lad of whom I speak was no more retarded in his development than any other member of his family. The circumstances that drove him to commit murder could have been encountered by any other member of his family, or by any member of any family - by my son or the son of any honourable senator. He was driven to the point of desperation by the pressure of circumstances that could be brought to bear on any individual.

The other lad to whom I referred did not have a proper chance, right from early childhood, because of the economic conditions of that period. He was one of a large family. He was dragged up and neglected, not receiving the attention he needed. On many occasions in his life he received respect and kindness from females who later proved to be false friends and let him down. Finally in a desperate situation the only true affection he had received in his life was taken away from him. He underwent a mental collapse and as a result committed murder for which he was hanged by the State. From my knowledge of those lads it seems to me that they were not criminals; they were not bad lads. They were driven by circumstances which can arise in anyone’s life.

The incidents I have related would never have occurred but for the creation by society of the circumstances that drove those lads to their crimes. Is it not possible that they could have been rehabilitated if the means of rehabilitation had been’ available? Since those days prison reforms have been introduced. It has been said that the gaol conditions of those times were such that it was more merciful to end the life of convicted murderers than to submit them to imprisonment for prolonged periods under the conditions that applied in our prisons in earlier times. But can that argument properly be used today? Two hundred years ago people were deported to Australia for the offence of stealing threepence. Such harsh penalties are not imposed today because it is realised that they are not necessary.

The public conscience is moving more and more toward opposition to the death penalty. I was in Melbourne on the Sunday when there was a public demonstration against the planned hanging of Ronald Ryan on the following day. I attended a demonstration at which I saw the biggest crowd of demonstrators I have ever seen in Australia. It was divided into two sections. One section held a public meeting in a park, and the other section wanted to raid Pentridge gaol. After the public meeting was held the two sections merged at the gaol gates. The crowd was large enough to have torn down the gaol, brick by brick. They were quietened not by the Victoria Police Force but by Jim Cairns who appealed to them not to bc rash. The police force of the Bolte Government handed over its public address system to Mr Brown, the President of the Victorian Branch of the Labor Party. He faced the crowd and using the police force’s public address system proposed a resolution condemning the Bolte Government of Victoria. That is how the crowd was quietened outside the gaol.

Senator Webster:

– That is only one view.

Senator Branson:

– No-one there worried about the victim of the murderer.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am giving an eye witness account. Everyone was sorry for the victim, but taking Ryan’s life did not return the victim to life, nor did it prevent future murders. It achieved nothing.

Senator Branson:

– Why is everyone so concerned about the murderer and not about the victim?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I think everyone is concerned about the victims of murderers: That is why this Bill is before the Senate. The Opposition claims that hanging is not a deterrent to murder. If hanging was abolished, fewer murders might be committed. Today the penalties for pack rape are being increased.- It is one of the most horrible crimes imaginable, but its incidence is increasing as fast as the penalties are increased.

Senator Branson:

– What would the honourable senator do? Would he let them off?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the honourable senator to look at it this way: To impose the death penalty as a deterrent is to use a psychological approach to the citizens. Crimes which carry a heavy penalty necessitate the exercise of great care by the persons who commit them so that they will not be detected. The penalty does not remove the cause that drives a man to commit a crime. It makes him very careful not to be detected. A more effective psychological approach to the community would be to advocate recognition of the sanctity of life and the need for the preservation of life, rather than to impose penalties which prompt criminals to exercise greater care against detection. The Government should give a lead in recognition of the sanctity of life, rather than insist on the doctrine of a life for a life. As Senator Cohen has said, the death penalty is all inclusive. It permits of no differentiation between one murder and another. Senator Cohen quoted figures tonight which indicated that public opinion no longer favours the retention of the death penalty for murder in certain circumstances. For example, a small number of mercy killings take place throughout the world these days. Legally, these are looked upon as murder. They are certainly premeditated killings. These is an intent to kill, and the killing is done with a full knowledge of what the action means. Yet, in these days, more and more juries are rejecting the verdict of murder where mercy killings lake place because the only penalty for the crime is death.

Senator Cohen spoke of the intent to murder. For the purposes of my argument, let us suppose that last week, with all the malice aforethought possible, I took a loaded gun, went to the residence of my mother-in-law, saw the familiar figure there, sighted the gun and fired a bullet at her. Let us suppose also that the bullet inflicted a wound that would have been fatal but for the fact that a next door neighbour came in to borrow a cup of sugar, saw the mother-in-law lying on the floor and had her rushed to hospital where, thanks to urgent skilful medical attention, her life was saved.. Had the lady next door not wanted to borrow a cup of sugar, and had that skilful medical attention not been given promptly, I would have been guilty of murder in the first degree and the penalty for that act would have been death. As the mother-in-law did not die, I would be charged with the offence of attempted murder. This charge enables the judge to consider all the circumstances such as provocation, which led to the firing of the shot. It is possible that after considering those circumstances he would sentence me to imprisonment for 18 months and I would become the hero of half the married men in Australia as a result. In cases such as that, there is an intent to kill but because of an element of luck, death does not result from the act. Should the person concerned escape the death penalty purely because, although murder was intended, intervention by another person saved the intended victim’s life?

Senator Mattner:

– The honourable senator must recall what happened in Adelaide recently. Surely he remembers the occasion on which a person murdered another man whom he did not even know? The murderer walked into a shop and shot a man. Does the honourable senator recall that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes.

Senator Mattner:

– What is the honourable senator’s reply? The poor unfortunate victim was shot. He cannot come back to life. What is the answer?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I know the case, but I do not remember the trial. I would say that that was more a case for a medical man than for a jury. I know that despite his feelings about me at times, it would never occur to Senator Mattner to point a gun at me. If a person just fires a gun for the sake of firing it, I think there is something wrong with him medically.

Senator Branson:

– But the honourable senator would not let him out to do it again if he were a schizophrenic?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I certainly would never let anyone out to do it again. We have trained doctors and trained social welfare workers associated with our gaols today and it is only on very rare occasions that such persons do get out to do it again. There may be one or two isolated, cases. Statistics prove that men who have been convicted of murder are amongst the best conducted prisoners in our gaols.

Senator Henty:

– What statistics?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I recommend to Senator Henty that he read a book entitled Life for a Life’ written by Sir Ernest Gowers who was chairman of a royal commission appointed in Great Britain in 1949 to inquire, not into whether capital punishment should be abolished, but into whether the liability for hanging should be limited or modified. In it he points to statistics relating to gaols in Britain to this effect. He refers also to the position in Queensland and has this to say: lt will be seen that in Queensland there was a slight rise after the abolition of the death penally in 1922, but there was a similar one in New South Wales-

Where the death penalty still applied - and the increase continued in thai State, while in Queensland there was a pronounced decrease after a few years. In New Zealand there was a sharp rise after abolition in 1941, but a similar rise occurred in New South Wales, and indeed was a common phenomenon of post-war conditions in many countries. The State in which capital punishment had been abolished more than 20 years before recovered better from this phase than cither of the other two. In introducing the Bill that restored capital punishment in 1950, the Minister for Justice said: ‘I have satisfied myself that the figures neither prove noi- disprove the case for capital punishment, and therefore they neither prove nor disprove the case against it’.

There are quite, a number who, after having been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, have been released. I know of one man who worked for a church organisation.

Senator Branson:

– If the honourable senator is talking of Dugan, he was not a murderer.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 1 do not think he was. However, he was a reformed man. There are a number of murderers who have been released and who have never committed a second murder. The only one who might commit murder a second time is a person who has committed a gangland murder. But he is in a different category. He will carry out his profession at all times for monetary gain and he endeavours, if possible, to make sure that he is not caught. The Bill before the Senate does not intend that anyone who is a danger to the life or limb of any other person should be let free upon the public. It has for its purpose the substitution of life imprisonment for the death penalty. It is submitted because of a growing feeling throughout the world in favour of the abolition of the death penalty.

Senator Branson:

– Can these people be let out on parole?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Not after they are dead.

Senator Branson:

– 1 am talking about the present’ legislation. If you gaol them for life, they can be released for good conduct on parole.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Bill before the Senate asks that they be gaoled for life. Senator Branson’s attitude is: Let us hang them and see what good conduct we can have.

Senator Branson:

– No. Thar is evading the question.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is not evading the question. It is trying to understand the question.

Senator Branson:

– if a man is imprisoned for life he can still be released by a parole board.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is so. This Bill seeks to have them imprisoned for life. If their behaviour is such as to indicate that they should be released and the circumstances that lead to their commission of the crime justify a parole, then we see no reason, especially with the present mellis of prison reform, why they should remain in gaol. I do not think Senator Branson should be concerned if we speed up our prison reform measures so much that we can relase them earlier. Surely there would be no opposition to that. But we give up any chance of rehabilitating them or of solving the problem by first hanging them and then deciding to hold a post mortem on what we will do in the way of reform. This Bill is an attempt by the forward thinkers of a political party to give a lead on something which is a growing reform throughout the world and which this Commonwealth Parliament should be expressing in its legislation because the time has come for the abolition of the death penalty. I support the Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Senate is debating a Bill for an Act to abolish capital punishment under the laws of the Commonwealth. The Bill is expressed very widely. As Senator Wright has said, it would appear to bring within its scope the abolition of the death penalty not only for the offence of murder, wherever it may be expressed in the laws of the Territories, but also for offences under the Acts adopting the Geneva Conventions, the Defence Act and the Crimes (Aircraft) Act. On that basis it is wide and far ranging.

We have heard from Senator Cohen and Senator Cavanagh their assertion that it is time that Australia and this Parliament abolished the death penalty. J say with no disrespect to the strength and sincerity with which they hold their views that they have not put before the Senate this evening arguments that should prevail and persuade the Senate to adopt their measure. I think it is fair to say that what we have heard from them is this simple statement: ‘Other countries have been abolishing the death penalty: we should do likewise’. Whilst that is a relevant consideration and must be considered in any assessment of this problem, the very pertinent and particular arguments that were raised in opposition by Senator Wright remain unanswered so far.

Senator Cohen suggests that Australian public opinion has indicated that there is a view in favour of what is proposed in this measure. I challenge that. 1 propose to examine with some particularity what the gallup polls have had to say. But before looking at the more particular aspects of those polls, it is relevant to note that this Bill goes into the abolition of the death penalty far more extensively than have any of the public opinion polls which have been sampled and the results of which have been published. As I said, this Bill seeks to abolish the death penalty in respect of a whole range of offences including that which the abolitionists have not been prepared to include in the past, namely, treason. That is a question that has never been put to a public opinion poll. So at the very outset I say that the public opinion polls must have questionable or dubious weight in any argument which is used and which relies upon them in support of this measure.

The last gallup poll on this subject was taken in February 1967. It indicated that, in answer to the question: ‘What do you think the penalty for murder should be?’, 46% said life imprisonment, 43% said hanging or some other death and 1 1 % were undecided. Those were the Australia-wide figures. But I believe that it is relevant to have regard to the figures in each of the States. Two States have abolished the death penalty for murder. They are New South Wales and Queensland. In New South Wales 41% favoured the death penalty and in Queensland 37% favoured it. A greater number favoured a gaol sentence. In the other four States, where the death penalty is retained, the figures indicated a clear majority for the retention of the death penalty. In Tasmania 56% were in favour of the death penalty, 31% favoured a gaol sentence and 13% were undecided. In South Australia 49% favoured the death sentence, 39% favoured a gaol sentence and 1.2% were undecided. In Western Australia 47% were in favour of the death sentence, 38% favoured a gaol sentence and 15% were undecided. In Victoria, in the month in which Ronald Ryan was executed. 44% favoured the death penalty, 42% favoured a goal sentence and 14% were undecided.

Senator Prowse:

– Why not read the next column, which gives the overall Australian figures?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– -I thought the honourable senator would appreciate that I mentioned the Australia-wide figures before I gave the State by State figures, lt is also relevant to note that no poll was taken in the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory or the other Territories for which the Commonwealth is responsible and in which this measure, if it were accepted, would become law.

Senator Cohen:

– There has been a 26% swing away from the death penalty on an Australia-wide basis since 1953, I think it was.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I agree that on an Australia-wide basis there has been a move from a high percentage in favour of retaining the death penalty to a lower percentage. But I would say that in a sense that is to be expected because a tremendous amount has been written by social scientists, politicians, social workers and others who favour abolition and there has been a constant barrage of publicity of that character over the last 10 years.

Because of the very nature of the arguments that they have to put forward, people who do not favour abolition are not articulate and are not publicists. We do not find in the newspapers and other journals any articles putting forward a positive case for retention of the death penalty because no-one argues for it. and advocates it with enthusiasm or regards it as a social necessity that they do so. People put forward arguments in favour of retaining the death penalty only on occasions such as this, when there is a considered argument on whether it should be abolished. In these circumstances there is an obligation to put forward the contrary arguments - and there are contrary arguments.

I was dealing with the gallup polls. It is relevant to repeat what I said a moment ago: The Bill seeks the abolition of the death penalty for all offences. That was not the question that was asked in the latest gallup poll. Equally, it is not clear from the material that the people who conducted the gallup poll have given us whether the question that was asked was whether the people questioned believed that the death penalty should be carried out or whether they simply believed that the. death penalty should bc on the statute book. I suggest that if that distinction were made clear there might be a totally different response. It is one thing to say that every murderer should be executed. On that proposition many people would cavil, although many others would support it. But it is another thing to believe that the death penalty should bc retained on the statute book and should be carried out only in those cases in which extenuating circumstances cannot be shown. A question on that issue might produce an entirely different result.

It is equally interesting to see that in the States in which the death penalty is retained and in some of the States in which it has been carried out recently there is still a clear majority in favour of the existing law. This suggests that there is no great public feeling in favour of change. Finally, I think there is always the caution which ought to be borne in mind when considering gallup polls: A question is posed out of context, without a statement- of the arguments for. and against, to a somewhat surprised interviewee by a slick -interviewer and the answers which one might get in those- circumstances cannot be regarded, when they are sampled and given as a positive result, as authoritative bases for any conclusions to be drawn.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Then what is the point of raising the matter of gallup polls?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I can only say in answer to that question that I was not the first to mention gallup polls; I think Senator Cohen placed some reliance on the findings of gallup polls. Senator Wright has mentioned that in each of the States of the Commonwealth, except Queensland, the death penalty is retained. In four of the States it is the penalty for murder and in New South Wales it is the penalty for treason. In the Commonwealth Territories it is a penalty for murder and a penalty for treason. This penalty applies equally under the Commonwealth law.

When one considers the limited range of offences to which the penalty is applicable it is quite apparent that we are not dealing with a great number of offences. This would suggest, therefore, that the problem with which we are concerned is not an extensive one. No-one has been executed in the Australian Capital Territory. No-one has been executed under the Commonwealth law. Two persons have been executed in the Northern Territory. That represents the effective carrying out of the death penalty in those fields in which this Bill is intended to apply. One might wonder why the Senate is tonight deliberating on a measure such as this when the scope and effect of the death penalty in the past have been so limited. I do not want to be unduly provocative, but one might suppose that it is for want of other arguments and other pressures that the Opposition has raised this measure because it is not a far-reaching measure which has excited any great public comment or controversy.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is a deliberate and well considered policy of the Labor Party to abolish the death sentence.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Yes, it is a well considered policy of the Labor Party and my - understanding is that it has been the Labor Party’s policy for many years, but various State Labor Governments have done nothing to abolish the death penalty. The Labor Party did nothing to abolish it in the Commonwealth Territories when Labor was in power here 18 or more years ago. On the question of carrying out the death penalty in the States, again the point can be made that this is a matter which over recent years has been seldom given effect. In Queensland, which abolished the death penalty in 1922, the last execution was in 1913. In New South Wales, which abolished the death penalty for murder in 1955, the last execution was in 1938. In Tasmania, which had then and still has a Labor Government, the last execution occurred in 1946. In Victoria there was an execution in1951 and again in 1967, but prior to 1951the last time that an execution was carried out in Victoria was in 1941.

The last execution to take place in South Australia occurred in 1964, and in Western Australia between 1959 and 1964 there have been five executions.

If we consider the overall position in Australia over the last 10 years we find that there were six executions between 1956 and 1965. What proportion is that of the persons who have been convicted of murder? I have had extracted from copies of the ‘Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia’ the record of persons convicted at higher courts for murder from 1956 to 1965, State by State. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate it in Hansard.

The interesting part of these statistics is that in the 10-year period there was a total of 297 convictions for murder throughout Australia, and if one considers that six executions have been carried out in that time one sees that 2% of the total convictions for murder resulted in execution. I appreciate that to take the six executions as a percentage of the 297 convictions is to ignore that a great number of the 297 were convictions for murder in New South Wales and Queensland where the death penalty would not have been carried out. Therefore, if we exclude the convictions for murder in New South Wales and Queensland and take the six executions as a percentage of the remaining total we arrive at a more accurate figure. In fact, of the 297 convictions for murder in Australia in that 10-year period, 192 occurred in New South Wales and Queensland. Therefore, of the 105 convictions in the other States, the number of persons who were executed represents 5.7% of the total. That is a relatively small percentage and, in my view, is not a very significant indication that the death penalty for murder should loom so large in the minds of people who seek abolition as apparently it does.

However, I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that from 1956 to 1965 the number of convictions for murder in Mew South Wales totalled 148 and in the other State where the death penalty has been abolished the number was fifty-five. The next highest number was in Victoria where, of course, the death penalty is retained. The number there was forty-four.

I appreciate that I have merely transferred the figures in the statistics, but all this does provide an indication that in the States where there has been an abolition of the death penalty the number of convictions for murder is greatly in excess of the number in States which have retained the d e a 1 t penalty.

Senator Prowse:

– But how many convictions were there in each of the States? The honourable senator did not tell us that.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I recognise that statistics such ‘as I have extracted do require treatment by someone who is trained in the treatment of statistics, but quite obviously there is the arithmetical record that in the States which have abolished the death penalty there has been a much greater number of convictions for murder than there has been in the other-States, lt may be that Senator Cohen would say, although the point has been clearly answered by Senator Wright, that this is because in those States where the death, penalty is retained the juries will not obey their oath and W1 not convict for murder. But if that is so, why is the position in Tasmania what it is? Although the death penalty still exists in Tasmania and the policy of the Labor Party, as I have been assured here tonight, is in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, although there have been no executions in that State since 1946 and it is certain that in the 10-year period from 1956 to 1965 there would have been prevailing in Tasmania that sure knowledge which prevailed in New South Wales and Queensland that a person convicted would not be executed, in that period there have been only eleven convictions for murder in Tasmania and in the last 3 years of the period there were no convictions. T suggest that Senator Cohen cannot have it both ways.

Whatever conclusions are to be drawn from these figures - honourable senators may examine them in Hansard in due course - it is quite clear that tonight we are discussing this matter against an Australia-wide background of increasing lawlessness and an increasing number of convictions for murder. Therefore it is relevant to consider these matters in the light of what is proposed. J. simply mention to the Senate that in 1956 there were 22 convictions for murder throughout Australia. By 1965 the number had risen to

  1. The background which I have been advancing generally indicates quite clearly that in few instances has the death penalty actually been invoked. An examination of those instances in which the death penalty was involved will show that there were special circumstances which explained why the Executive Council was not prepared to commute the death penalty, lt is clear that the passing of the death penalty does not lead automatically to its being carried out. It is a matter for the Executive Council. Honourable senators who are interested in this aspect would be interested in the views expressed by an ex-Judge of the Victorian Supreme Court, Sir Charles Lowe, who, after the controversy in correspondence in the ‘Age’ newspaper of February and March 1967 about events leading up to the execution of Ronald Ryan, indicated the procedures which are followed by the Executive Council when it has before it the question as to whether or not a death sentence is to be commuted. The law provides that anyone who has been convicted shall suffer death as a felon. The obligation is upon those who wish to put to the Executive Council the view that the sentence should not be carried out to satisfy the Executive Council that the sentence should not be carried out. It is quite clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases extenuating circumstances are to be found and the death penalty is not carried out.

That is the pattern under which the death penalty operates in Australia today. It does give support to the general proposition, which Senator Cohen advanced, that Australia should be humane, modern and up to date. Having regard to the extent to which the death penalty though it be pronounced is not actually carried out, I fail to see that the pattern in Australia is any way different from the pattern or procedures in Great Britain. True it is that in the last 2 years Great Britain has decided that it will not have the death penalty pronounced and therefore has forgone the right to impose the death penalty in any case in which it might appear to be the appropriate punishment. We in Australia retain the death penalty but we are exceptionally sparing in actually putting it into effect. I think that the present position is satisfactory. I think it is appropriate that in cases of murder there should be a penalty which expresses the community’s abhorrence of the crime and which represents the community’s denunciation of it. I think that view would fit fairly readily into what Senator Cavanagh stated as one of his three criteria of what should be the penalties. As I recall what the honourable senator said, he said that firstly it should be a punishment; secondly, il should satisfy the public conscience that justice has been done; and thirdly, it should be a deterrent. In cases of murder the community conscience is not satisfied unless there is a denunciation in the most emphatic way. lt is only in that way that the community can indicate that murder is the worst crime in the statutes.

Lord Denning, who is reputed to be one of the most up to date and learned Judges in the British Commonwealth and who was recently in Australia, spoke against the abolition of the death penalty in Great Britain in 1965. I think it is fair to him to say that when he was in Australia he indicated that the views he expressed in 1965 he would not express now because the death penalty having been revoked he would not wish to see il come back. But this was part of the views he expressed in 1965:

The question before us, deterrent or no deterrent, is a matter of what I believe the ordinary man in this country feels. So, accepting that it is a deterrent, 1 go on one stage further. In my judgment - I have expressed this opinion before - the objects of punishment are not properly described as being solely deterrent or reformatory. There is retribution, by which 1 mean that in order to maintain the respect for law and order in this country, society itself, and the courts of law in their punishments, must express the revulsion which the ordinary citizen feels towards grave crime. Indeed, as we all know, in the present state of opinion, some crimes demand the most emphatic penalty of all.

I cite that statement because 1 think il represents a view in regard to the death penalty that is held by most Australians. The power exists to commute the death sentence - it is a power which has been exercised on most occasions - and I think it is the most satisfactory way in which we can give effect to considerations which apply in particular cases. A number of arguments have been advanced by the abolitionists. To me those arguments, as presented tonight, have no great persuasiveness, I say that with all respect to those who presented the arguments. It has been suggested that the death penalty is no deterrent and because it is no deterrent it ought to be abolished. It is a curious situation to put forward an argument of that character. Who is to say the death penalty is not a deterrent? Who knows whether or not a person has been deterred from murdering simply because he or she knows what the penalty is? Who knows, in the course of a crime, how much the death penalty has been a deterrent so that the person engaged in the crime has not been prepared to take the ultimate step, which might be murder and which might appear to him or to her to lead to an easy way out of detection? It is just impossible to determine whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent.

The Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in Great Britain in 1949 had before it the views of many eminent people. lt. has been suggested that a great number of those people expressed the view that the death penalty could not be said to be a deterrent. 1 think it is fair to say that a number of other people who appeared before that Commission expressed the opposite point of view, and probably the most important of those people was the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, lt is quite clear that there is no statistical evidence which correlates the existence or the absence of the death penalty with the murder rate before and after it has been abolished. In the nature of things that evidence will never be available. Therefore to refer to the absence of that statistical evidence as an argument in favour of the point of view which has been expressed tonight appears to me to be no argument at all. lt is suggested that we should be modern and humane and that we should recognise that the standards of the 20th century require that the death penalty should be abolished. This argument is frequently raised. I suggest to honourable senators that this is reflected by the very few occasions on which the death penalty has actually been carried out.

In my opinion there is one argument, and one only, which is an argument of weight as to why the death penalty should be abolished - that is the risk of error. If the wrong person is convicted and executed it is horribly final. It has been pointed out that the gravest doubts exist as to whether Mr Timothy Evans was guilty of the murder for which he was actually executed. I say the gravest doubts because he has been pardoned posthumously. But he was convicted by a jury. Events which have occurred thereafter have raised - I do not seek to minimise them - the gravest doubts as to whether he was properly convicted.

I am npt one who believes that a jury presented with the evidence must arrive at a correct conclusion. A jury can make errors and there is the risk that a person can bc wrongly convicted of murder though, having regard to the system under which we operate and having regard to the appeal provisions which exist, I believe the risk of a person being permanently wrongly convicted is remote. I think the possibility is even more remote in Australia, having regard to the way in which the death penally is invoked, that a person wrongly convicted would be actually executed. Of course, I recognise that this is an argument of weight but the circumstances of particular instances will explain themselves and an argument of weight, in itself, is no reason for abolishing the death penally.

A further matter which can be raised in argument against this measure is that the criminal law of all Commonwealth Territories is being reviewed, lt has been under review for the past 4 or 5 years. As the Attorney-General has said on several, occasions, the Law Council of Australia has been undertaking, through a committee, the drafting of ;i code which will embody the criminal law of the Commonwealth Territories and also the body of Commonwealth criminal law. This work, I understand, is approaching completion.

One of the mailers the committee will consider is the offence of murder, its components and doubtless, its penalties. In due course when the matter comes to be considered, I hope that the opportunity will be taken to examine the question of the sentencing of a person convicted of murder. ] recognise - it is the whole basis of my belief - that we should not abolish the death penalty. There are some crimes for which the death penalty represents community opinion. I think it would be a far more satisfactory system, however, if instead of the offence being the offence of murder so found by the jury, with- the sentence being pronounced by the judge as an inflexible sentence which he cannot vary, it were left’ to the jury to determine the type of murder and that type of murder would be categorised by the penalty it bore. .

I understand that in some American States first degree murder carries a mandatory death sentence. I do not know whether we would use the same language here or even whether it would be advisable to do so, but I do think we could have some system whereby a jury would be permitted to determine whether, as in the present instance, a person was guilty of murder and, by the character of the murder which it found, to indicate its opinion on what the sentence should be. But that is a matter for the future, lt is not strictly relevant to this Bill but it indicates that the community would have a greater participation in something which is said, on its behalf, to be a matter in which it is concerned.

I conclude by referring to the position in the United Kingdom. The death penalty was abolished for all purposes in 1965. In April 1966 two persons were put on trial at the Assizes of Chester on three counts of murder. They were charged with murdering a little girl aged 10. a little boy aged 12, and a young man aged 17. Brady and Hindley, a man and a woman, were duly convicted on each count. It was a horrifying trial and many honourable senators will recall the accounts of it which appeared in our newspapers. Present at the trial was a lady who had always been an abolitionist. That lady, Pamela Hansford Johnson - 1 think in other spheres she is Lady Snow - has since written a book titled ‘On Iniquity’. This is what she has to say at pages 88 and 89 of the book by way of introduction: 1 shall never forget the exhilaration of being in the crowded gallery of a crowded House of Lords when capital punishment was finally abolished by a majority of 100 votes.

When the Moors- trial ended we dill feel a lack of catharsis: something violent should have happened to put an end to violence. Throughout, we were missing the shadow of the rope.

She goes on to say that she is still an abolitionist and does not want the death penalty brought back but she indicates in those words the sense of frustration which she felt - if she felt it, doubtless millions of others must have fell it too - at the inability of the law to do what people felt the law should do when the two accused persons were convicted. lt may be suggested that the people who committed . the crime of capturing these young children, of stripping them, of photographing them, of gagging them, of torturing them to a background of tape recorded music, were mad. She deals with that aspect on page 101 in this way: 1 have hitherto believed that anyone who com mitted murder was in a sense mad; there seems to be a fragile barrier between the desire and the performance which is, thank God, unexpectedly powerful; as if it were a micro-crystalline barrier which is able to hold back enormous pressures. In this case, the pressures had been broken. Yet it was impossible to feel that Brady and Hindley had gone mad - simply that they had settled for iniquity.

Had settled for it; theirs was a corporate action, the fantasy mulled over hour after hour, week after week, suddenly - it must surely have been sudden? - turning into a practical possibility.

When one reads the book one senses how inept a person feels to explain why the death penalty has been abolished. She goes into pages to explain as best she can why she still feels that the death penalty should be retained but she cannot explain how these crimes could have been committed. That, I feel, reflects the community view. There are, and always will be, occasions when viciousness will develop into murder and the community will expect its conscience to be satisfied. While that situation exists, there is a case for the retention of the death penalty. The occasions on which it has been invoked should give Australians no cause for alarm.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– In the rather limited time available to me I feel I should point out that the Bill before the Senate is a very simple measure calling for the abolition of capital punishment in Commonwealth law. The Bill is quite deliberately a simple Bill because we believe the issues involved in this matter are not of such a nature as to warrant a great deal of technical discussion about the different laws of the Territories, rather that a general proposition can be put about the desirability of the abolition of capital punishment. A society can be judged by its penal laws. A society which has barbaric penalties for offenders is a barbaric society, and a society which has enlightened penalties for offenders is an enlightened society.

Debate interrupted.

page 983

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood) - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate,I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 May 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19680514_senate_26_s37/>.